Disabled People
	 — 
	Question

Tabled By Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take to ensure that disabled people are involved in the decisions taken by Ministers that affect them.

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

Lord Freud: My Lords, under Article 4 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, we are required to consult with disabled people on all decisions and policies that affect them. The Government are fully committed to that requirement. I and my colleagues are keen to champion an approach of involving disabled people during policy development across government. We will continue to talk as widely as possible with disabled people about matters that affect them.

Baroness Wilkins: I thank the Minister for that reply. As he says, Article 4 states:
	"In the development and implementation of legislation and policies ... relating to persons with disabilities, States ... shall closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities".
	Article 33 requires the same involvement in the monitoring process. How did the Government discharge their obligation to consult closely and actively involve disabled people in the decision to remove mobility allowance from people living in residential care? What steps do the Government intend to take to include disabled people in the monitoring of that policy?

Lord Freud: My Lords, perhaps I may first say on behalf of the whole House how much we look forward to seeing the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, back in her place alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins.
	The issue of the mobility allowance was raised in the context of the comprehensive spending review. At that stage the proposal had not gone through a full consultation process, but one would not expect all the measures in such a huge announcement to have gone through the full process. However, the measures will go through a process of full parliamentary scrutiny before they take effect in October 2012. The DLA reform document has also been put out to consultation, on which there have already been discussions with about 50 representative organisations. Those discussions will continue.

Lord Rix: My Lords, in the comprehensive spending review the Government allocated £2 billion more for local authority social care services. Unfortunately, this money was not ring-fenced. What assurances can the Government give the House that the money will be spent by local authorities on the purpose for which it was allocated?

Lord Freud: My Lords, the Government's strategy is to go down the path of personalisation of services, on which we clearly look to local authorities to take the lead. As the noble Lord pointed out, we have made £2 billion extra available. In practice, local authorities have much more than that available and it is up to them to make sure that the funds go to those with disabilities in the most effective and efficient way.

Baroness Thomas of Winchester: My Lords, further to the first reply that my noble friend gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, will the Government also take into consideration disabled children in residential schools whose parents have a car on the Motability scheme and who, given the need to look after their children in the school holidays, need the higher-rate mobility allowance? I quite take my noble friend's point that there is a public consultation on the disability living allowance-I declare an interest in that I have received the consultation, which is very welcome-but this problem must not be overlooked.

Lord Freud: My Lords, I reassure my noble friend that there is a requirement for residential care homes, children's homes and educational establishments such as special schools to meet children's relevant needs, including their mobility needs.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, are the Government aware that there is still great unmet demand from people with learning disabilities and their families for intentional and village communities, which are also cost effective and care effective? Will the Government ensure that such demand is no longer frustrated at local level, as it has been for many years?

Lord Freud: My Lords, clearly that issue hits on a key point relating to how we organise our services. This Government are putting an enormous amount of effort into localising services and then personalising them. To the extent that those processes come through by 2015, more localisation will be visible.

Lord Low of Dalston: My Lords, the Government stated that, when the mobility component of DLA is withdrawn from people living in residential care, local authorities will have a responsibility to provide for their mobility needs. Can the noble Lord tell the House what this responsibility is and where it can be found in statute?

Lord Freud: Residential care homes have an obligation to meet residents' mobility and other requirements, which are translated into individual care agreements with those in residential homes.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: I want to ask the Minister about Supporting People, which is a vital programme that has helped around 1 million of our most vulnerable citizens each year. The programme is a qualifying service for the purposes of the disabled person's right to control regulations to the extent that it helps people to live independently. Given the 28 per cent cut in local authority expenditure-which we will hear about officially shortly-and given the fact that Supporting People funding is no longer ring-fenced, what assurances can the Minister give disabled people that there will be effective monitoring of the programme to ensure that their rights are protected and delivered?

Lord Freud: My Lords, we are protecting the Supporting People budget and are spending up to £6.5 billion until 2015, which is roughly the same as the current spend. Clearly, with the localisation agenda, it is for local authorities, particularly in their personal spending approach, to ensure that the money is spent in the most efficient way possible.

Gaza
	 — 
	Question

Lord Fowler: To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to alleviate the hardships suffered by people living in Gaza.

Baroness Verma: The UK has provided £27 million to the UN Relief and Works Agency this year, of which 30 per cent has been spent in Gaza to deliver essential services to the 70 per cent of Gazans who are refugees. We are also providing £2 million to support the Gazan private sector and funding UN and Palestinian Authority teams working to facilitate access for imports to Gaza. We continue to call on Israel to improve access to Gaza for aid and reconstruction materials.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. As she will know, last month I made a visit to Gaza, the details of which are declared in the register of interests. Is it not part of the tragedy of Gaza that, although some goods are now going in more freely, severe restrictions remain on the import of construction materials that are necessary to build and rebuild homes and schools? While no one disputes the security problem, do not the Government agree that there is a danger that such a policy of restriction, which harms thousands of entirely innocent people, will help to recruit a new generation of extremists?

Baroness Verma: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's concerns. We recognise that ordinary Gazans are suffering-indeed, the deterioration of Gaza's institutions and infrastructure is described by the UN as "de-development". We continue to call on Israel to implement its 20 June announcement by allowing full exports and movement of people. Ministers have put that to Israel during their recent visits to the region and we are working with our EU partners to agree practical steps to improve access. That is having results, as Israel has agreed to limited exports from early next year. However, it is important that that translates into reality on the ground.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, is the Minister aware that despite the antagonisms between Hamas and Israel, almost 40 per cent of children sitting down with their families in Israeli hospitals are from Gaza? Is she also aware that a number of doctors from Gaza are training in Israel to go back to set up clinics there?

Baroness Verma: The noble Lord makes a very valid point. Of course, it is by dialogue and improvement in negotiating across both the occupied Palestinian territories and Israel that we will improve the lot for both sides of the argument.

The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the recent interagency report, Dashed Hopes: Continuation of the Gaza Blockade, that there can be no just and durable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without an end to the isolation and collective punishment of the people in Gaza?

Baroness Verma: My Lords, I very much take on board what the right reverend Prelate says. We know that the situation in Gaza is a tragedy, but we do not believe that isolation of Israel through means of economic sanctions or embargos is the right approach. We will continue to press Israel robustly to make the concrete changes needed to improve the lives and futures of the people of Gaza.

Lord Chidgey: My Lords, can my noble friend give the House an update on the progress of the talks between Israel and Turkey in Geneva in trying to resolve the crisis created by the killings of Turkish citizens attempting to break the Gaza blockade aboard the "Mavi Marmara"? What actions are our Government taking to try to help resolve the strained relationship between those two countries, particularly given the importance of the strategic relationship between those countries and our own interests in the wider scenario?

Baroness Verma: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. All dialogue and all conversations are very welcome if they encourage peace.

Baroness Deech: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Gaza has other very severe sources of hardship, which include: the enforcement of morality rules against women; attacks on Christians; the bombing of Christian schools; the persecution of journalists; and the killing of political opponents? All of those are due to the enforcement of the regime by Hamas. Does she further agree that perhaps the person in Gaza who suffers most is that long-term captured prisoner, Gilad Shalit?

Baroness Verma: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that all those actions are deplorable. We need to ensure that, through dialogue with both sides, we work towards a peaceful settlement.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what action the Government are taking through discussions with the countries of the Arab League about what they are able to do in terms of humanitarian relief? I am thinking particularly of Egypt, which controls the Rafah crossing, and I wonder whether it is allowing any humanitarian aid into Gaza through that crossing.

Baroness Verma: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises important issues that we are continuously raising with the Egyptians, through both the Foreign Office and DfID.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Conservative Middle East Council and vice chairman of the Britain-Palestine All-Party Group. On a recent visit to a school in Gaza with my noble friend Lord Fowler, I was struck by the irony of the seven year-old boy singing the song he had learnt for us, "If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands". Would my noble friend agree that education is vital in holding the line against extremism? Will she confirm that DfID does all that it can to support the UNRWA schools that do so much to bring balance to the lives of children in Gaza?

Baroness Verma: My noble friend is right that education will be key to solving many of the difficulties that both these nations face. Of course, through our aid programme, that is exactly what we are trying to do to ensure that the infrastructure projects are able to work as normally as possible under the very difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, apart from the point raised by my noble friend, how is Hamas reacting to the present situation? In the Government's view, is it helpful or unhelpful?

Baroness Verma: My Lords, we have no dialogue with Hamas.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, ever since I came to this House in 1998, I have heard members of the Front Bench say that the Government are calling for Israel to do this, to desist from that and all the rest of it. Israel has been in a decades-long breach of international law not only on its pulverisation of Gaza but on its colonisation of the West Bank. When are we actually going to do anything?

Baroness Verma: My Lords, my noble friend knows that only through dialogue will we resolve matters. The UK is only one of many partners involved in making sure that peace is able to be brought forward.

Parliament
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that Parliament is able effectively to hold them to account.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is primarily for Parliament itself to determine how it can best hold the Government to account. However, I have sought to help that process in this House by setting up a Leader's Group to consider our working practices.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I warmly welcome the establishment of the Leader's Group, and I am sure that it will have some fruitful deliberations. Do the Government view the Cabinet manual, which we understand that they will be publishing later this week-possibly even tomorrow-as a first step towards a written constitution for this country, as was postulated in today's Daily Telegraph? How will the Cabinet manual improve government accountability in Parliament?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Cabinet manual has yet to be published, so I will not comment on it. As to whether or not it is a precursor to a written constitution, no, I do not think so.

Lord Boston of Faversham: While I normally find myself in accord with what the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, says, is it not a rather strange concept that Her Majesty's Government would wish to be called to account?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I always admire the noble Lord for his questions. However, I think that the Government have an interest in the generality of being held to account by Parliament; that is part of our support for the parliamentary process as a whole. I have to say that in this Parliament, I think that noble Lords opposite-the Official Opposition-are doing a very good job.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I welcome this Question. In the previous Administration, the Executive were far too powerful and the legislature so weak. Had it been the other way round, perhaps there would have been better scrutiny of war with Iraq. That said, does the Leader's Group intend to look not only at the composition in terms of reform of the House but at the functions of both Houses and how they relate to each other, bearing in mind that in a fully elected House the Salisbury convention would no longer apply?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, a Leader's Group led by my noble friend Lord Goodlad is looking at the working practices of the House. There is another committee led by the Deputy Prime Minister looking at reform of the House of Lords; that will report early in the new year. As for the previous Government, I think that after 1997 there was a move away from good parliamentary governance, and the relationship between the House of Commons-another place-and the Government changed. We have sought to put that back.

Lord Morgan: My Lords, is not parliamentary governance and accountability a total fiction at present? To have parliamentary accountability, you need, first, a Government with a clear mandate. This Government do not have a mandate. They were not elected by the people; they were elected by six people in a closed room without consultation of the electorate. Nor do they have an agreed programme. There is no constitutional coalition manifesto; we have a mysterious document called the coalition agreement. Is that not a reinvention of the constitution much to our damage?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I completely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, in almost everything he said. He does not have a long enough memory. There have not been many coalitions, but the whole point about the Government is that they are made up of whoever controls the majority in another place, and the coalition clearly does that.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, in the interests of accountability, would the Government consider attaching where appropriate measurable numerical targets to legislation-for example, numeracy and literacy targets to legislation affecting primary schools?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we in this Government have been trying to get away from targets. I am not entirely certain what point the noble Lord was trying to make, but perhaps I could look again at his question and, if I can think of a better answer, I will write to him.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, the Leader of the House was telling us how much he appreciated the Opposition being very good in this Parliament. Does he not realise that the Opposition could be much better if we had a Speaker with power who could call Members to speak?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the reason I thought the Opposition were doing so well is that out of 24 Divisions, the Government have lost six. We have been defeated in 25 per cent. That is why I think they are doing a very good job. I remember the Opposition of the 1980s and 1990s, when the Labour Party here was considerably smaller. They did a very good job then, which leads me to believe that Labour really is very good in opposition and is probably better in opposition than in government.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is there much point in Parliament trying to hold the Government to account when the Government themselves are largely controlled from Brussels?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I had a feeling that the noble Lord was heading that way. Whatever the realities of the relationship between this Parliament and Europe, what is of primary importance to this Government is that Parliament itself is in a fit state to scrutinise the Government.

Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend was very welcoming and supportive of the idea of parliamentary control of government, which I am sure we all welcome. Will he bear in mind that this enthusiasm is common in every incoming Opposition and cools in the first 18 months, so can he get on with it?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend, with his long experience, is almost certainly right. The basic principle of parliamentary accountability of the Executive is an important one that we should never let go lightly.

Legal Aid: Family Courts
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Deech: To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to assess the impact on family courts of the increased number of litigants in person who will have to represent their own cases if they no longer qualify for legal aid.

Baroness Deech: My Lords, I beg leave to put the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare an interest as chair of the regulator, the Bar Standards Board.

Lord McNally: We are currently reviewing the existing data and research into the impact of litigants in person on the courts. This will contribute to the analysis in the final impact assessments due to be published alongside the legal aid consultation response in spring 2011.

Baroness Deech: I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that existing research shows that cases involving litigants in person take longer and are less likely to settle? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, has said that mediation does not meet the case in every situation. It is also likely that more men will be able to afford lawyers and that more women will have to fend for themselves in these family law cases where the interests of children should be paramount. It is not right to leave parties legally unaided in these emotional and complex issues. Does the Minister really believe that these cuts will in the long term save costs and do no harm?

Lord McNally: My Lords, that is certainly the intention. What we are trying to do is to get a change in culture so that people in family cases do not automatically go to law. Some of the points that the noble Baroness raised are worth examining. For example, in a case where there is not a balance of resources, the courts will be able to ask the wealthier of the two parties to deposit resources, which will mean a greater equality in advice. The basic thing about our reforms is that we do not believe that family justice is best carried out by state-funded litigation.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Is my noble friend aware of the concern of the family Bar that the cuts in legal aid will disproportionately affect ethnic minority lawyers with the result that, in 10 or 20 years' time, there may be a lack of diversity in judges appointed to the Family Division?

Lord McNally: My Lords, it is difficult to assess the full impact at the moment, but it is certainly true that, in many of the firms that have been dealing with family law, ethnic minorities are better represented. However, I think that it is too early to say that the impact to which my noble friend has referred will come about.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a large majority of our fellow citizens would be willing to pay whatever taxes are required to ensure that everyone in this country, through legal aid, is equal under the law and has equal entitlement to access to justice before the courts? Should not that be a bedrock principle of a liberal society?

Lord McNally: My Lords, one of the Government's proposals, which I think has some merit, is to attempt to move away from a culture in which the taxpayer pays for litigation, particularly in family disputes. Many studies have shown that the litigation route to settling family disputes exacerbates the dispute and causes lasting harm to all sides of the family, particularly the children.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, as a judge who tried a large number of family cases in which both sides were litigants in person, I can confirm that such cases will take much longer. Does the Minister realise that there is a hard core of people who fight over their children and who will not agree through mediation? I would be delighted to take part in consultations with the Government on what will happen.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I fully appreciate the noble and learned Baroness's long and great experience in these fields. Certainly, some cases may be lengthened by the fact that neither side is legally advised, but the intention, as I said at the beginning, is to try to move a large number of such cases away from the court system into mediation and other forms of settlement. I fully accept her point that family disputes can become so bitter and intractable that resolution is very difficult, but that still does not argue the case for the taxpayer funding both sides in that kind of dispute.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I declare an interest as a deputy High Court judge of the Family Division and chair of the All-Party Group on Domestic and Sexual Violence.
	Does the Minister accept that, in cases of domestic violence, mediation is not appropriate and that the unequal nature of such relationships demands that there should be proper financial support for the litigants in those cases? Bearing that in mind, will he give an assurance that domestic violence cases will still receive appropriate public support?

Lord McNally: Domestic violence cases will get appropriate public support. In the arrangements for legal aid, a separate fund can be granted for special cases. Where legal aid falls outside the newly defined scope, I suggest that many of the areas suggested by the noble and learned Baroness will be good cases for special treatment.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords-

Arrangement of Business
	 — 
	Announcement

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, at a convenient point after 4 pm, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will repeat a Statement on public order policing, followed immediately by my noble friend Lady Hanham, who will repeat a Statement on the local government finance settlement, followed by my noble friend Lord Marland, who will repeat a Statement on the climate change conference in Cancun.

Consolidated Fund Bill
	 — 
	First Reading

The Bill was brought from the Commons, endorsed as a money Bill, and read a first time.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 
	Copy of the Bill
	Explanatory Notes
	Amendments
	7th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee 
	6th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights

Committee (4th Day)

Clause 2 : Entitlement to vote in the referendum
	Amendment 35
	 Moved by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
	35: Clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert ", and
	(c) prisoners in jails in the United Kingdom serving sentences of less than 4 years"

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 35 standing in my name on the fourth Marshalled List of amendments.

Lord McNally: My Lords, perhaps there could be speed from the many people wanting to leave before the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, speaks.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord McNally, whom I have known for many years and from whom I have learnt to expect nothing better. I am always grateful to him for his acknowledgement of the reality of the situation. I am glad that it is not unique on this occasion.
	This amendment raises the issue of the voting rights of prisoners in relation to the referendum. We have a clear ruling from the European Court of Human Rights and an imminent announcement of a decision in relation to that from the Government. Following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on 6 October 2005, more than five years ago, many Members will know that United Kingdom's current ban on all serving prisoners from voting in elections contravenes Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
	The previous Labour Government decided to carry out a two-stage consultation process on options for a change in policy. The second consultation period ended on 29 September 2009, which is now more than a year ago. In its fourth report of 2008-09, the House of Commons and House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights said that it was unacceptable for the Government to continue to delay on this issue. On 21 July 2009, the chair of the Joint Committee wrote to the then Lord Chancellor seeking further information about how the Government were going to respond to the court's judgment. Nothing was done to change the law before the general election on 6 May 2010, although there was an attempt in your Lordships' House to amend the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill of 2009-10 by inserting a new clause that would have removed the statutory bar by repealing Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. However, this amendment was withdrawn.
	In June 2010, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe expressed "profound regret" that the ban had not been lifted in time for the 2010 general election. The Committee of Ministers said that it would draw up a resolution for action if the United Kingdom Government failed to give prisoners the right to vote in time for the elections to the Scottish Parliament, which will be on 5 May 2011 and are planned to coincide with this referendum, and to the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, which will be on the same day.
	On 2 November 2010, in response to an Urgent Question in the other place, Mark Harper, the Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office, said that the coalition Government accepted that there was a need to change the law and that Ministers were considering how to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. As I said, I understand that a decision on this is imminent. It is expected that later this month the coalition Government will make an announcement on how they are going to respond to that judgment with regard to implementation. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McNally, could confirm that this is the case when he responds.
	When I originally tabled the amendment, I specified a term of six months, which seemed at the time the appropriate period to enable us to start this discussion. However, I heard on the grapevine-I am not sure that I should always believe what I hear on it, but on this occasion it seemed fairly plausible-that the Government are going to suggest four years. If that is the case, it is sensible for this amendment to specify the same so that there will not be any confusion between voting in the referendum and voting in the elections that are to take place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland next May. If the amendment is accepted, the Bill will anticipate what the Government are going to do in relation to elections.
	This is a very liberal amendment and I make no apology for that. I am not seeking unduly the support of the Liberal Democrats but it is the sort of thing that I have heard Liberal Democrat lawyers in this House argue for at length on many an occasion. No doubt we will hear the same today, knowing their enthusiasm for consistency, particularly in higher education and related matters. However, I should express my own view, because I have tabled the amendment and I have just argued that the case should be considered. I know that some of my noble friends have a slightly different point of view, so the opportunity has been provided for what I hope will be an interesting debate. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will not mind my saying that he has written to me stating that he is in favour not of the time limit but of giving powers to the judge considering the case to withdraw voting rights. I understand his argument, although I do not accept it as the best way forward.
	My view is that the decision of the European Court of Human Rights is correct. Once an offender is sentenced, he is fined or jailed. The appropriate sentence is decided on by the court and it is the punishment that the offender should receive in relation to their offence. In fact, the offender suffers a great deal more than that, especially by being jailed. Almost inevitably the person in jail will lose their job and will not go back to it afterwards. Prison has a huge effect on children and families and there is a loss of status and position within society. All those factors are part of the punishment that the offender faces. Is the decision of the court therefore not punishment enough? Why, on top of that, should offenders lose the right to vote? Voting is a fundamental human right and I cannot see any logical argument for withdrawing it other than wishing to punish someone over and above the sentence decided on by the court.
	I do not want to speak at great length, so I shall quote in aid of my argument only one published article, not from the Guardian but from the Daily Telegraph. Mary Riddell wrote the following:
	"Two cheers for David Cameron, who has done the right thing by giving prisoners the vote, albeit with deep reluctance".
	The Prime Minister was, she continued,
	"said to be 'exasperated' and 'furious' about a decision reportedly forced by the threat of litigation. In legal terms, the turnround is long overdue. Six years have passed since the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the blanket ban imposed by Britain was discriminatory. Since then, Labour and the Tories have dragged their feet disgracefully. Today's news fits ... with Ken Clarke's hope for a rehabilitation revolution. Prisoners lose their liberty, not their citizenship. If the object is to punish them, protect the public and equip offenders to rejoin the community, then they should work, pay taxes-and vote. Creating a disenfranchised and idle sub-class merely encourages re-offending. There's no question of all prisoners getting the franchise. Very serious offenders will certainly remain barred. But the rest will get a basic right accorded in countries across Europe. Mr Cameron has taken the only decision he could. It is the right one".
	If Mr Cameron is right, I hope that his colleague in the coalition, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will take note of that and accept the amendment.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, for raising this issue, which has been raised on the Floor of this House many times. I am also grateful to him for the way in which he explained the inordinate delay that there has been over the years, which frankly could have been avoided if the nettle had been firmly grasped. The noble Lord mentioned a letter that I wrote to him, which was consistent with what I have contributed to both consultations and, indeed, on many occasions-that one reason for removing the vote as part of a sentence is that that would enable the judge to add that penalty for a particular crime. It is interesting that most of the comments that we see in the press on this issue refer to certain types of prisoner who have committed certain types of crime being given that penalty of having the vote removed. Personally, I would have no objection to that, provided that the measure is adopted as quickly as possible, because too many elections have passed without this happening. Everything possible ought to be done to enable those prisoners who are qualified to take part-whether that is according to the crime or whether, as appears likely, the Government will put a time limit on it-in the referendum and the other elections likely to take place next year.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, I do not follow the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. It is difficult to see what would happen if a judge were to be given discretion to impose the loss of the civic right of voting depending on the particular type of crime. One simply asks this question: if, for example, a prisoner were guilty of shoplifting, which would normally have a very short sentence at most, is that crime one that would make him forfeit those civic rights? If there is a form of assault, is that to be one? There would be infinite argument about how the judge should exercise that discretion. Surely it is better to have a blanket bar if there is to be a bar at all.
	I have enormous admiration for my noble friend Lord Foulkes. We served for over a decade in the same team in opposition and I had great admiration for his assiduity-fertile in invention was perhaps the way that we always thought of him. However, I thought, with respect to him, that he appeared to be arguing against himself. Having suggested four years in his amendment, for the reason that he gave, he then appeared to be arguing in favour of no bar at all. I will reread what he said but for the life of me I could not see any consistency.
	I confess that my predisposition is, in principle, to be in favour of a bar, but I reluctantly accept that those who have committed crimes and therefore forfeit a number of their civic rights should not also forfeit the civic right to have a vote. That puts me not in the liberal club, although perhaps my noble friend Lord Foulkes was trying to follow our party's new line of trying to attract dissident Liberal Democrats into our fold. I will not follow that line. In spite of my predisposition, I accept the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. Indeed, it has to be accepted-the sooner the better. The only question that remains is the length of sentence that there should be. There has been far too long a delay, as the noble Lord said.
	I, too, have heard, perhaps on the same grapevine, that the Government will shortly make an announcement and that they favour four years, without any discretion for the judge. If that be their response, though, there is surely a case for consistency. If it be the case in respect of a general election, surely the Government should now act in the spirit of what we are told they will be announcing shortly and say that the same principle should apply to those who are currently serving sentences. If they will, and I suspect that there is the will for this in the House and in Parliament as a whole, they can ensure that whatever length of time they choose is in operation by the time of the referendum, whenever that may be held, be that 5 May or some other date.
	If only for the reason of consistency-even though, like the great mass of public opinion, I suspect, I am not personally convinced of the case-I accept that we must follow the European Court of Human Rights. Pace the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, we cannot pick and choose the judgments that we follow. In following them, we should endeavour to attain consistency in the various elections that our people will be involved in.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is a timid one but it is the only one we have, and I will wholeheartedly support it. There is a paradox, is there not, about one aspect of the punishment of someone who has put themselves outside society being to keep them outside society? Surely the very heart of rehabilitation is to get a prisoner thinking once again that they relate to the society that they have offended against-to bring them back inside the "big society tent", if you like. It seems to be a self-injury to have the rule at all, although I can perhaps understand how the law is as it is out of respect for public sentiment, however wrong that sentiment may be. With that, I will simply say that I endorse and support what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has said.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on this. I have two brief points. First, I know that I shall be told that this is a ferociously anti-European thing to say, but it is emphatically not intended to be that. Am I the only person in this House, or indeed in the other House, who always feels slightly uncomfortable when a Government, of whichever party, stand up and say, "This is something we've absolutely got to do, whether we like it or not"? There comes a point where you question the extent to which that is compatible with a sovereign Parliament. It is a always a bad argument, and I have seen this on a number of other occasions, if an elected Member of the other House has to go back to their constituents and say, "This is something we have no choice whatsoever about; this is a matter that's been decided somewhere else". That is a weak argument and I know that my noble friend did not deploy it; he addressed the actual merits of the case. That is just an observation.
	Secondly, I am sure that there is an answer to this, but I am simply not versed enough to know it. Given that there are many other countries where I understand there is an unfettered right to vote in general elections, the practicalities of exercising that right in a meaningful way seem very difficult. A normal constituency campaign involves access to constituents and potential constituents if you are a candidate. It involves meetings, if necessary, and canvassing. I am sure that these practical questions have been asked long before I raised them in this debate, but I would like to know what the practical answers are.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Grocott, I had not intended to speak in this debate but he encouraged me to do so with his introductory remarks. I rise to do two things. First, I remind your Lordships that, far from the European Convention on Human Rights being some foreign, European imposition on our culture, it was in many ways our post-war gift to the rest of Europe. The convention was largely drafted by British jurists. The structure that was put in place to enforce those conventional rights was part of that gift, which we encouraged upon the rest of Europe. This is a very British thing to do in many ways. It has taken decades for this issue to come before the court and for the court to give its opinion and impose back upon us, as it were, an interpretation of those rules that allows prisoners the legal right to vote. It has it roots in our own jurisprudence and legal thought. We should not in any sense blame this on others or suggest that it is being imposed on us.
	Secondly, I support and commend my noble friend Lord Foulkes for raising this issue here, although it will not result in amendment of the Bill or in the opportunity, at last, for us to live up to the consequences of the judgment, do what will inevitably need to be done and deal with the issue-to grasp the nettle, as another noble Lord suggested. However, it gives the coalition Government's Front Bench an opportunity to reassure your Lordships' House that we will not find ourselves in a situation where they give either a subset or all of this group of people a vote by decisions made through legislation in this House, and then immediately deny those persons their say in a referendum. That would be an entirely inconsistent position. I look for assurances from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the Government will do everything they can to ensure that, if they intend to give prisoners or any class of prisoners the vote, the legislation will allow prisoners to express their preference in a referendum.
	There are several practical considerations. For example, in the other place I represented a constituency that had a large prison in it. Working out whether those people were best served by maintaining their relationship with the Member of Parliament who represented them in their home patch or whether they were my constituents for the issues that they raised with me, exercised my mind on many an occasion. These issues have to be resolved and worked through and they are by no means straightforward.
	I remember being told many decades ago by a governor of Barlinnie prison that part of the problem was that we had not appreciated that we send people to prison as punishment, not for punishment. This was at a time when the Scottish prison system was in complete turmoil; we were caging people within cells in Porterfield prison in Inverness to control their behaviour. Many people are punished further than the courts intend by being denied that right and that responsibility when they are in prison. For the bulk of our prison population, whether they lose their vote is entirely a matter of luck. Most of them are in and out in such a short period that, if there is a coincidence of an election, it is entirely a matter of luck-to do with how their case is dealt with, the time involved and the proceedings-whether they are denied a vote. It is not as if everybody who is convicted of a crime between elections is denied a vote in the next election; it is entirely a matter of random luck. The sooner we resolve the issue, the better. The opportunity that my noble friend has given us to air some of these issues has benefited this House and the debate. I commend him once again for introducing this matter.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I can be very brief, mainly because I have not so far taken any part in the issue which has been urged for so long and so very effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. However, I have listened to the debate this afternoon, and it seems to me that by supporting the amendment we will be taking at least a step in complying with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights which has been outstanding for so long. It may not be the best solution-I do not know whether it is or not-but, on the principle of half a loaf being better than no bread, I lend my support to the amendment.

Lord Bach: My Lords, for many years the law in this country has decreed that if you lose your liberty, you lose your right to vote. However, as we have heard, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that this blanket ban on prisoners voting must be ended. My noble friend Lord Anderson is right: a large number of people in the United Kingdom do not agree with that ruling, which makes the issue a difficult one for politicians of all shapes and sizes. Nevertheless, when Labour were in government-I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in his place as he and I used to agree on this subject just a few months ago-we accepted that we had a legal obligation to comply with the European Court ruling, and that compliance would ultimately mean giving some prisoners the vote. Mindful of the need to take account of public opinion-that is a real issue here-in responding to the European Court judgment, we undertook a consultation process aimed at identifying an acceptable solution to a difficult problem.
	I praise the Liberal Democrats who were always keen, when in opposition, that the Labour Government should act more speedily on this issue than was the case. However, I recall that throughout our discussion on this issue-we debated it for some time in the previous Parliament-the Conservative Party urged us to stay as we were and not to get on with it. Indeed, the right honourable and learned gentleman who is now the Attorney-General said, when in opposition, that it would be "ludicrous" if prisoners got the vote. When I used to sit where the noble Lord, Lord McNally, does today, I was always relieved to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when he was on the opposition Front Bench, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, among others, against the proposal that prisoners should have the vote. Therefore, let us not have any criticism of us, as I am afraid the Lord Chancellor has been prone to do in the past week or so, saying that we should have legislated on this some time ago. I do not believe that the Conservative Party manifesto stated that prisoners should vote in the previous general election, but I am, of course, conscious that the other half or third, or whatever it is, of the coalition will respond today, and no doubt he will speak, as always, on behalf of the Government.
	However, more seriously, it must be acknowledged on all sides of the House that there is a strong sense among the public-I think this is what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was getting at-that a decision may be being forced on the country against the will of the people. Indeed, reading what the Prime Minister has said about this issue, one feels that he thinks that, too. Clearly, this issue has some potential to undermine yet again public faith and participation in the political process. For that reason the Government have to respond to the European Court ruling in a way that is mindful of the views of the public and reassures them that their representatives are not simply rubber-stamping decisions made elsewhere. I hope that all noble Lords agree that it must be done in a way that is sensitive to British values and respects the position of this sovereign Parliament.
	To be fair, the European Court itself recognises that fact, which is why it agreed to give the Government a degree of flexibility in how they respond to the ruling that a blanket ban on prisoners' voting is unlawful. I believe that the concept is called a "margin of appreciation", which has also been known to apply in other fields, but is particularly important here. In short, therefore, we would argue that the Government are not compelled by the margin of appreciation to give all prisoners the vote, but are required to enfranchise some. It is clearly up to the Government to decide who they believe should have the right to vote and to put that decision to Parliament.
	It is rumoured on the grapevine that there will be an announcement before Christmas; I think that that grapevine is called the Lord Chancellor. In reply to the debate last week on the sentencing Green Paper, I think he made an announcement that there would be a parliamentary Statement around this subject before the Christmas Recess, and we look forward to hearing what it has to say.
	The amendment of my noble friend proposes to give the vote to all prisoners sentenced for up to four years in jail. That seems to be going too far. While it may be possible to persuade people to accept a change, whereby prisoners convicted of comparatively low-level crimes are allowed to vote, we do not believe that the law-abiding public would easily accept a solution that ends up with people guilty of really serious offences-including violence, sexual assault or crimes against children-having a say in who represents them while they are in custody. That could be the consequence of the amendment, which would set the threshold to as high as four years.
	We find deeply unattractive the idea that that a judge should have a say as to whether an individual whom he is sentencing should have the vote. The first reason why it is unattractive is because, frankly, I do not think that there is any judge in existence who would want that power. Secondly, the idea's unattractiveness is demonstrated, for example, by the prospect of a prisoner not being allowed to vote because a judge has used his discretion in a particular way, and whether that prisoner should have a right of appeal about that aspect of the sentence.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember that when we debated this issue on the Floor of the House when he was a Minister, he mentioned that the decision would actually come from the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which would guide the judges in this matter, and would remove the unlikelihood of inconsistencies between judges on different types of sentence?

Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am not likely to forget our frequent discussions about this subject. However, can the noble Lord help me? Would he, under his proposal, give the defendant, who the judge has told, "No, you cannot vote", a right of appeal in the normal way against a decision such as that?

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, yes, I believe so.

Lord Bach: I have to say that the possibility of that kind of appeal clogging up an already busy system is not one that we would support, particularly at this stage.
	We cannot support the amendment, although we are grateful to my noble friend for raising this subject-as, I am sure, the Committee is-because the issue has exercised this House a great deal over the past few years. We very much look forward to the Government coming up with their proposals in the next few weeks.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: The noble Lord says that he cannot support four years as being just too long from the point of view of public opinion. What period would he support?

Lord Bach: I find that question more difficult, but the period would be less than four years, rather than more.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson; I have known the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, even longer than he has. Where I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is that the noble Lord is a master of fertile invention-particularly when he is on the opposition Benches. What we have had today is a good debate about a matter that has yet to come before Parliament.
	The amendment seeks to amend Clause 2, which sets out the franchise for voting in the referendum on the parliamentary voting system. Under Clause 2, anyone who is entitled to vote in Westminster parliamentary elections would be entitled to vote in the referendum. Members of this House entitled to vote in local and European elections will also be able to vote in the referendum, a matter we debated last Thursday.
	Sentenced prisoners are currently barred from voting by Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. This bar, which has been supported by successive British Governments, has its origins in the Forfeiture Act 1870. However, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, in 2005 the European Court of Human Rights found that the United Kingdom's prohibition on all sentenced prisoners voting breached Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights-the right to free and fair elections. I was pleased by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, because it is important to remind people when we are debating our responses to decisions of the European court what its origins were.
	I was recently at a meeting where the daughter of Sir David Maxwell Fyfe was present. It was worthwhile for the noble Lord, Lord Browne, to remind us of the major contribution that Sir David and other British lawyers made to a convention that was seen as a response to the horrors and excesses of the untrammelled tyranny that Europe had just experienced. Of course it is important that we look at the decisions of the court in the light of our own experiences and customs, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for his reminder.
	As Mr Mark Harper, the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, made clear in the other place on 2 November, the Government accept that there is a need to change the law. Ministers are currently considering how to implement the judgment and, when the Government have made a decision, their proposals will be announced to Parliament in the usual way. There will then no doubt be a full debate on the issues, giving Parliament the opportunity to discuss the issues reflected in this debate.

Lord Bach: As I understand it-I may be wrong-the Lord Chancellor, the right honourable Secretary of State for Justice, said last week in answer to questions on the sentencing Green Paper, when this topic came up, that a decision would be made by the Government and announced publicly by the Christmas Recess. Can the Minister confirm that?

Lord McNally: I cannot confirm it because I do not know. If the Lord Chancellor said that he must know about the timetable. However, I am not in a position today to confirm or otherwise whether such a decision is imminent. When it is, it will be announced to Parliament and I am sure that the usual channels in both Houses will find time for a debate, which will be, I suspect, very much along the lines of today's debate.

Lord McAvoy: As well as Parliament having a say, can the Minister indicate what measures, if any, are being taken to engage public opinion on the length of the term recommended?

Lord McNally: That is a very good example of why it will be necessary to have a full debate in both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that Members in the other place want to go back to their constituencies and consult their constituents before taking part in such a debate. When they do, I hope that both they and Members of this House will bear in mind the message of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that what we are discussing is not a heinous directive from Europe, but respect for the European Court of Human Rights, of which we were key architects when it was set up.

Lord Wills: What consideration has the Minister given to deliberative mechanisms such as citizen jurors for engaging public opinion in the way that my noble friend Lord McAvoy has just suggested should be done?

Lord McNally: My Lords, that is not a question for today. We should wait to hear the Government's decision and then go through the normal parliamentary processes and consultations. That will take place all in good time. It would not be appropriate for me to make commitments at this Dispatch Box about either the timing of, or consultation around, another Bill altogether. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that his best support has come from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, who thinks that this is half a loaf, and from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who thinks that it is going too far. I suggest that this is not the basis for pressing an amendment. The Government accept that they are legally obliged to lift the blanket ban on prisoner voting in UK parliamentary elections. However, accepting this amendment and allowing a category of prisoners to vote in the referendum would pre-empt Parliament and prevent it following the proper course of debating prisoner voting in both Houses when the Government have come forward when their proposal. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Pannick: Will the Minister at least give the Committee an assurance that when the Government come forward with their proposals for reform in this area, they will bring forward an amendment to the Bill that is consistent with the general approach that they propose, so that we do not find, when this referendum takes place-next May or whenever-that prisoners whom the Government accept should have the right to vote are denied it?

Lord McNally: No, my Lords, I cannot make that commitment. The legislation is specific to this referendum. When the Government have a Statement to make on prisoner voting, there will be time to discuss this and many other matters.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Electoral Commission has been able to confirm that such an amendment would be practical if it were approved. It seems that it would involve a change to the franchise and a change to the electoral register process, as well as consideration about how campaigning could take place and how voting mechanisms could be established. I am in favour of such changes being made in future, where appropriate, but it seems that it would be very difficult to do this in time for a vote on 5 May next year.

Lord McNally: I suspect that my noble friend is right.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, is it correct that the Bill proceeds on the basis that those that have a franchise in general elections would have a franchise under the referendum Bill, and that if the legislation covering general elections is altered in the mean time, this would apply automatically to the referendum if it comes after that amendment has taken place?

Lord McNally: I suspect that there is indisputable logic in what my noble and learned friend says.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, the House is entitled to be puzzled by the inability of the Minister to say whether an announcement will be made before Christmas. Either the Lord Chancellor said that it would be made or he did not: which is the case?

Lord McNally: If the Lord Chancellor said it, he must have been speculating.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: Taking into account the very wise advice from the Minister's noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I think that the Committee is entitled to ask the noble Lord for an assurance that the Government will promote legislation according to a timetable that does not leave this country in the ridiculous position of agreeing to allow prisoners the vote when the referendum is imminent but denying them the vote in the referendum.

Lord McNally: My Lords, if there were a general election next January, prisoners would not get the vote even if the Government had announced their intentions in December. The two things are separate. The Government will announce their intentions on prisoner voting and it will be handled in the proper way with a Statement in both Houses. As I said, the usual channels will find an opportunity for a full debate and in due course legislation will probably be brought forward. However, that legislation is separate from the legislation currently before the House, which is why-

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps by the time the noble Lord reaches the end of his sentence, he can clarify one point for me, because what he is saying is becoming increasingly complex. As I understand it, the Government are rescuing this issue from the long grass, into which it was put for many years while people considered the implications of the European Court of Human Rights judgment. The noble Lord seems to be suggesting that, now that it has been rescued from the long grass, the intention is to embark on a process of Statements, consultation, debates and legislation, which will mean that it goes back into the long grass for very many years. Is that the case?

Lord McNally: Not at all, my Lords; it is called parliamentary democracy. There are enough experts on those Benches, including the noble Lord, to know that the process that I described is exactly what happens when there is a major change such as this-it will require legislation and parliamentary time. However, I really do not think that there should be any talk on those Benches about long grass and delays, given the five years that they spent on two consultation processes, which, as my noble friend said from a sedentary position, is another way of saying "prevarication". We will come forward with specific proposals-not in this Bill but at the proper time. In the mean time, I again urge the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Harris of Haringey: Is it intended that there will be a Bill in this Session of Parliament or are we talking about putting this off until 2012 and beyond?

Lord McNally: I have absolutely no idea. I cannot, in the Committee stage of one Bill, start committing the Government to parliamentary time for another Bill. One would almost think that the Benches opposite were trying desperately to get past four o'clock, whereas I know that they are probing me and they continue to do so.

Lord Bach: My Lords-

Lord McNally: I withdraw that remark as I can see how upset the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is about my aspersion.

Lord Bach: My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer is never upset. We have agreed that, whatever time the debate on this amendment ends, the Statement will follow straightaway, so I promise the noble Lord that there really is no attempt to go on beyond four o'clock.

Lord Rooker: Does the noble Lord, Lord McNally, agree that the answer to the question, "How long is the grass?", is, "Can you see the giraffe"?

Lord McNally: I had not noticed the noble Lord come in. I was so relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was not here that I had forgotten about the noble Lord.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, at the risk of sounding immodest, I think that this has turned out to be a very worthwhile debate, if only for the last exchanges. I do not mean the fact that my noble friend Lord Rooker crept in through the long grass and was not seen by the noble Lord, Lord McNally; I am referring to the question whether, when the Lord Chancellor said that there would be an announcement by the end of the year, this referred to a government Statement or to the product of what was earlier described as fertile imagination. However, this has been an interesting debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, there has been an inordinate delay. From these latest exchanges, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will realise that, if there is a huge further delay, there will be deep concern. My noble friend Lord Anderson said that I was arguing against my own amendment, but he, having argued against lifting the ban, went on to accept it. At least I managed to persuade him.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: I hope that my noble friend will allow me to clarify my position. I said that my predisposition is to be against lifting the ban but that, because I realise that a change has to be made under our obligations to the European Court of Human Rights, with some reluctance I accept that the ban must be lifted in one way or another.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Exactly. I rest my case.
	That brings me to my noble friend Lord Browne, who not only represented a prison in his constituency but who as an advocate represented many prisoners-all of whom were innocent. He gave an erudite explanation and reminded us that the European Court of Human Rights is not part of the European Union but a product of the Council of Europe-a much wider grouping, and with United Kingdom involvement. He hit on an argument that I wished I had thought of, which is that the blanket ban is exceptionally random. It depends on when the prisoner is in prison. If they are not in prison when there is an election, they do not lose the right, but they lose it if they are in prison when there is an election. That is probably the strongest argument of all, which my noble friend Lord Browne put in a gentle and impressive way.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said that my amendment was timid, while my noble friend Lord Bach said that it went too far, so it seems to me to be just about right. There were some questions about its practicality. I do not think that there would be difficulty in giving prisoners the vote; the postal vote provision would enable them to vote.

Lord McAvoy: On the question of practicality and following what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said, will my noble friend say what kind of canvassing technique he would use?

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Of course we can ensure that those in prison get all the available literature. Somebody said to me-I give them the credit-that we would be more likely to get the votes of people who were in there for assault; the Tories would get the tax dodgers; and the Liberal Democrats would get those in for perjury. That is absolutely the last thing that I would suggest. Heaven forbid.
	There were some strong arguments in favour of the amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, did not say that he was only half in favour; he said that he was wholly in favour. A number of people have come round, even reluctantly, to say that they are in favour of it. However, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, pleaded with me. He got on his knees and asked whether, for the benefit of the House, and to enable the Government to introduce legislation-I hope soon-to cover the referendum and/or elections, I would withdraw the amendment. Because of the eloquence of his plea, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 35 withdrawn.
	House resumed.

Public Disorder: Policing
	 — 
	Statement

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the appalling violence that took place during last week's protests outside Parliament.
	I want first to express my gratitude to those police officers and commanders who put themselves in harm's way. They showed great bravery and professionalism in the face of violence and provocation. It was this bravery that enabled this House to engage unhindered in democratic debate. I know that the whole House will want to send them our thanks. I also want to thank Sir Paul Stephenson, who led the Metropolitan Police Service through a difficult operation and who serves London as Commissioner with distinction.
	Honourable Members may find it useful if I recap last week's events. On Thursday, 3,000 people assembled at the University of London Union to march through central London. By the time the crowd reached Parliament Square, police estimate the number of demonstrators had grown to 15,000.
	The police maintained a barrier system outside the Palace of Westminster which allowed pedestrian access and the business of the House to continue at all times. Concerted attempts were made to breach the barrier lines. Protestors threw bottles, stones, paint, golf balls and flares and attacked police with metal fencing.
	A cordon was placed around Parliament Square, but throughout those who remained peaceful and wished to leave via Whitehall were able to do so. A large number of protesters remained, many of whom committed acts of violent disorder, damaging historic statues in Parliament Square, breaking windows and starting fires. Sporadic disorder also took place in parts of the West End. It is quite clear that these acts were not perpetrated by a small minority but by a significant number of trouble makers.
	Some students behaved disgracefully. But the police also assess that the protests were infiltrated by organised groups of hardcore activists and street gangs bent on violence. Evidence from the other recent protests shows that many of those causing violence were organised thugs, as well as students. It is highly likely that this was also the case last week.
	I want to be absolutely clear: the blame for the violence lies squarely and solely with those who carried it out. The idea that some have advanced that police tactics were to blame when people came armed with sticks, flares, fireworks, stones and snooker balls is as ridiculous as it is unfair.
	We have a culture of policing in this country that is based on popular consent and trust between the police and the public. That must continue.
	Thursday's police operation involved 2,800 officers. More than 30 officers were injured, of whom six required hospital treatment. All six have now been discharged from hospital. Forty-three protesters were injured.
	The IPCC has already begun an independent investigation into the incident which left one protester seriously injured. Honourable and right honourable Members will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on this incident while the IPCC investigation is ongoing.
	The Metropolitan Police have confirmed that 35 people have been arrested so far. I expect this number to rise significantly as the criminal investigation continues. I can inform the House that there has been a good public response to the police's request for information on 14 key perpetrators of violence published on Sunday. The Met will continue to publish pictures of other key individuals in the week ahead.
	I also want to inform the House about the attack on the royal car. The House will be aware that on their way to an engagement in central London, the car carrying the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall was attacked by several protesters. There has been much speculation about the Duchess being struck through the window of the car. I understand that there was some contact made.
	The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has ordered an urgent review of the royalty protection arrangements in place on the night. I can tell the House that the review is due to report by Friday 17 December. Honourable Members will understand that for security reasons, the public details of the report may be limited. I will await the findings of the review before deciding what, if any, further action is needed. The Prince and the Duchess have already expressed their gratitude to the police. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning all the acts of violence that took place last week, and I call on the organisers of the protest unequivocally to condemn violence as well.
	The Government are determined to protect the right to peaceful protest, but violence is absolutely unacceptable, and the perpetrators of that violence must be brought to justice".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Rosser: My Lords, we share the gratitude expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to the police at all levels who were involved with the policing of the demonstration outside Parliament last week. A number of officers were injured in simply seeking to do their duty.
	Nothing justifies the violence and the criminal damage, much of which bears the hallmark of being planned and premeditated by a small minority who used the demonstration as a cover to carry out their own, far from peaceful, agenda. If major demonstrations become associated with mindless violence and vandalism, that is an attack on democracy, as it will deter decent-minded people who simply wish, with fellow-minded citizens, to express their view peacefully and publicly in that way, from doing so in future. There is also the risk that the violence detracts from the message.
	However, while unreservedly condemning the violence by a small minority, we share the anger and dismay of the many thousands of students who demonstrated peacefully over the decision by the Government to increase tuition fees so dramatically on the basis of a phoney argument that the country is on the verge of bankruptcy.
	As we know, there have been allegations of violence made against the police, and the Independent Police Complaints Commission is now involved in an independent investigation. One hopes that the matter will be investigated fully and as speedily as possible.
	A further issue was the appalling incident involving the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall who, as the Leader of the House said, were travelling by car to an engagement in central London. The investigation being carried out by the police should establish the facts, but that was a worrying and disturbing incident and must surely lead to a review of procedures.
	We understand that a number of those suspected of being involved in the violence and vandalism have been arrested, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave the number. Can he tell us how many, if any, have been charged? The perpetrators, whoever they may be, should be brought to justice.
	There was a previous demonstration last month at which there appears to have been an underestimate of the number who would be taking part. Once again, a small minority used a peaceful demonstration for their own violent ends. Was the Home Secretary satisfied beforehand, in the light of what had happened at the earlier demonstration, that the intelligence about the demonstration last week appeared adequate and that whatever could realistically be done had been done to minimise the prospect of a repeat of the previous violence and vandalism, and of threats to key people, such as members of the Royal Family, and to key buildings?
	The resources needed to police the demonstration last week must have been considerable. Can the Leader of the House give us some idea of the figure? Bearing in mind that cuts in the police budget are looming, can he give us an assurance that, despite that, the police will never be left in a situation where they feel that they do not have the resources available adequately to police major demonstrations in future? Can he also give an assurance that the budget for the policing of the Olympic Games will provide the police with the necessary resources to address major incidents of the magnitude and difficulty that we saw outside Parliament last week?
	There has also been speculation about the use of water cannon by the police in future major demonstrations and protests. Will the Minister say whether the Government agree with the view expressed by the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde, that the use of water cannon would not be proportionate to the violence at recent protests?
	Finally, I return to the actions of the police last week. They were there to enable people to exercise their democratic right to demonstrate peacefully. They were not there to provoke violence or to carry out acts of violence. The police do get provoked by a small minority who have that objective in mind and it must require the exercise of considerable restraint by police officers when they are attacked, and particularly when they see colleagues being attacked and injured-colleagues who are only seeking to do their duty. Inevitably the police will at times have difficulty in such a situation in being sure who are the perpetrators of violence and who are not. Where allegations are made against the police, they should of course be investigated, but we should also be grateful for the work the police did in controlling a very difficult situation last week. We should be conscious at all times of the pressures, the violence and the provocation they faced and of the restraint they showed.

Lord Strathclyde: I thank the noble Lord for the broad support and welcome-and, indeed, for the unreserved condemnation of those who protested with violence on their minds on Thursday. I agree with him that the violence looked as if it was planned and premeditated. I also think he is right that it was an attack on democracy and that it will put off those who are genuinely interested in peacefully demonstrating their views if each of these demonstrations is taken over by those who are violent.
	I did not quite follow the noble Lord's argument on tuition fees. I also remind him that it was his party that created the inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, which we have broadly accepted and which we will be debating in this House tomorrow.
	The noble Lord asked how many students have been charged. I was able to announce that 35 have been arrested but I have no figures yet on how many have been charged-or, indeed, on what the charges could be. Some of them could potentially be for major criminal acts.
	On the question of intelligence gained from earlier demonstrations, what I can say is that the police study each demonstration with care and learn lessons from each of them. The tactics of the demonstrators have clearly changed. The police prepare for that, but sometimes that is not enough to avoid those who are hell-bent on violence when, at the same time, the police's main aim, and indeed the Government's aim, is to support the right to peaceful protest. However, as the noble Lord pointed out, Thursday's violent disorder was not just protest; it was wanton destruction and is not acceptable.
	As far as funding is concerned, the Government are committed to ensuring that the police have sufficient resources to protect Parliament, the Royal Family and communities from concerted violent disorder such as we saw on Thursday.
	The noble Lord asked about the use of water cannon, a matter which has been raised in the press and has caught the eye of some. Water cannon are a potential option for use in public order scenarios, and while it is right that we look at the whole range of options, we need to consider their impact on the British model of policing and whether they are operationally needed. I do not think that anybody wants to see water cannon used on the streets of Britain. We have a different culture of policing in Britain, one that is based on popular consent and trust between police and public. As I said, a range of measures is available to the police, and I do not believe that water cannon are needed.
	The noble Lord finished by praising the police and by pointing out that we should all be grateful to them for the work that they do, and that enormous pressures were brought to bear on them and on their methods. Clearly the police need to learn lessons from this, as do the parliamentary authorities. However, we all owe the police a great sense of gratitude.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have two questions for my noble friend. First, I understand that Westminster Underground station and the road outside Parliament were closed. Surely it is not right that people should be prevented from arriving here as well as from leaving here.
	Secondly, I had a tiny hope that good might come out of very bad and that the people who are tented around Parliament Square might have been overrun. However, to my great gloom this morning, there they are still. How did they manage it?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on my noble friend's first question, I think we all regret that Members of either House could not arrive at Parliament and leave easily on Thursday afternoon. However, pedestrian access was maintained at all times.
	On my noble friend's second question, she may well say that good could have come out of bad. However, the Government, more strategically, are looking at ways of improving the Parliament Square situation, and I hope that an announcement will be made shortly.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, may I express my sympathy for the difficulties in which the police found themselves, and my admiration for the way in which, by and large, they handled the event? I have two questions. First, the Statement says that those who wished to leave the area of containment and,
	"to leave via Whitehall were able to do so",
	but a lot of people in the media have commented that they could not leave. Is there any doubt that the demonstrators who wanted to go down Whitehall to get away from the area of containment could do so?
	Secondly, I find what happened to the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall slightly puzzling. Those of us who were Ministers in Northern Ireland had the benefit of close protection officers who phoned ahead at all times and who would never have got me into that difficulty, and I fail to see why those of us, like me, who were Ministers were better protected than the Royal Family. Something seems to have gone badly wrong.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on the first point, about being able to leave the area of containment, my understanding is exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said: that those who wanted to leave, and to do so peacefully, were given the opportunity to do so through Whitehall. Furthermore, I gather that many thousands of individuals chose to take that route.
	On the second question, the noble Lord is quite right; something went badly wrong. That is why there is to be a security review. It is not my place to pre-empt or second-guess that review, but I am sure that it will take into account everything that the noble Lord said about his experiences in Northern Ireland.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, mention has been made of the number of officers involved. First, does the Leader of the House have any information on the numbers of officers who were brought in from forces outside London? Secondly, he will recall that, at the time of the G20 protests, there was a lot of concern that some officers were not showing their numbers clearly on their uniforms and therefore could not be identified. I understand that comment has been made that, although the number of officers was not large, some officers again could not be identified properly because their numbers were not displayed. Does he have any comment to make on that?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I said in the Statement, 2,800 officers were in and around central London on Thursday. I do not have the figures on how many of those originated from forces outside London but if I can find out I shall let the noble Baroness know. As far as ID numbers are concerned, she is entirely correct in her understanding that these should be uncovered so that individual police officers can be identified by members of the general public or anyone else. They should not be covered up, and there are standing instructions to make sure that those numbers are not hidden from sight.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I join those who have expressed horror at the ease with which a relatively small number of aggressive anarchists were able to hijack what otherwise was a properly constituted and utterly justified demonstration. Perhaps I may invite the Minister to bear in mind the wise and statesmanlike words of the late Lord Callaghan. As the House will remember, at the time of the Grosvenor Square demonstrations in the late 1960s, he said that whenever you are faced with a situation like this, it is best, on the whole, irrespective of cost, to have a surfeit of officers in place, because the more force you have, the less violence you have to use.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, Lord Callaghan had wise things to say from time to time, and I am sure that that was one of them. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred to a relatively small number. That was our assessment on some of the earlier demonstrations, but we have increasingly taken the view that that is not so much the case-that this was a much larger number of individuals who were looking for trouble, and looking to make trouble and to use violence as a form of making their views heard.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, will my noble friend Lord Strathclyde comment on the statement made by the Minister last Thursday that the order ensuring Peers and MPs' entry to Parliament has now been dropped? Is he aware that a top constitutional expert in this House has assured me this morning that Peers have not suspended that order, so presumably they still have such rights? Does he agree that if demonstrators and accompanying anarchists are aware that they are able to halt even a part of the work of Parliament, we have reached a dangerous situation indeed?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct to say that nothing should be done outside this building which stops either of the Houses from being able to continue their work, and I am glad to say that nothing last Thursday or on any of the previous demonstrations allowed that to happen. But obviously there can be occasions when so many people have gathered outside that it is difficult to keep every entrance and exit on the estate open.
	On the question of the sessional orders, they are of course in place, but my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire wisely explained their effect and raised some doubts in the mind of the House as to their efficacy. This morning I held a discussion, and with the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition, the Convenor, my noble friend Lord McNally and the Lord Speaker, we have asked the Clerk of the Parliaments and the acting Black Rod to report to me and the Lord Speaker on two matters. First, they will report on the effect of the current sessional order passed in the Lords and whether it remains useful, particularly as the equivalent order is no longer passed by another place at the start of each Session and, secondly, how the input of the House authorities into police operations around Parliament works specifically to seek to ensure access for Members and staff. I hope that my noble friend and the rest of the House will take that as a serious attempt to clarify what the situation is in this House so that Peers approaching police lines with their passes will be given the access they are due so as to continue their work.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, and it would therefore probably be inappropriate for me to ask any questions about the detailed policing arrangements. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, raised the issue of the tented community opposite the Houses of Parliament and I would also like to ask about Parliament Square. I believe that the arrangements for who is in charge of what in Parliament Square are immensely complicated, but my understanding is that the grassed area in particular is the responsibility of the Mayor of London, and I assume therefore that the fences surrounding the grassed area are the mayor's responsibility as well. It was those fences which were broken down and used as weapons against the police. Given that for previous demonstrations the statues in the square were boarded up-particularly the statue of Sir Winston Churchill-I was surprised that that was not done on this occasion. What representations have the Government made to the Mayor of London about his stewardship of Parliament Square under such circumstances?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think that responsibility for Parliament Square was handed over to the GLA when it was set up, and therefore to the Mayor of London, so I can confirm that there is a confusing and sometimes disjointed ownership of different parts of the square. The grass is the responsibility of the mayor and the GLA, while the pavements are the responsibility of Westminster City Council. I can also confirm that the fences were therefore the responsibility of the GLA. The noble Lord might well ask why other precautions were not taken to protect the statues or to firm up the fences, but these are precisely the questions that not only the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police but also his commanders on the ground will be posing. No doubt we will learn lessons from that.
	In answering the noble Lord, I have an opportunity to give a fuller response to the question put by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who asked about police forces outside London. I understand that no police officers from other forces were deployed on mutual aid arrangements on Thursday.

Lord Harries of Pentregarth: My Lords, what discussions are taking place with the organisers of these demonstrations, in particular the student unions, to discuss the most helpful ways in which they can dissociate and separate themselves from the violent elements who are clearly infiltrating their ranks on these demonstrations?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble and right reverend Lord is entirely correct to point out that there is an absolute responsibility on the student union, the organisers of these marches and the police to have a dialogue in order to decide on a route and on roles of behaviour. As I said in repeating the Statement, the march started off with 3,000 individuals, but by the time it got to Parliament Square it had grown to 15,000 and had created a sense of its own instability. I am sure that the police and many others will be making representations to the National Union of Students, other organisers and, indeed, colleges and institutions of higher education to see what they can do to try and help control the violence.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, on a practical point, does my noble friend agree that it would be extremely helpful if noble Lords who want to get here to register their votes but who do not want their arrival to coincide with the most difficult periods of these protests could obtain information closer to the time about when a gathering is going to start elsewhere so that they can try to arrive before it becomes too congested outside?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend has made a good suggestion. Obviously, with modern technology and communications it is sometimes easier to let Peers know what is happening on the ground but sometimes these things flare up very quickly. In a way, that is part of the point of the tactics that the demonstrators use. It is not always possible to predict exactly when things will happen. Once noble Lords are inside the House, the Annunciator very clearly lets Peers and other users of this House know which Gates are open and which are closed. However, it is a useful suggestion that my noble friend makes.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I know that it is 30 years since I was last involved in riot control and that the Falls Road is not the same place as Parliament Square but, to amplify the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, a word has crept into the vocabulary about what is going on in policing. It is "kettling". Can the Leader of the House explain what it means? I hope that it does not mean trying to contain a crowd in a space because, in my experience, one of the things that a crowd always needs to know is where it can go to, as do the people controlling the crowd who need to try to encourage them to go there.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has made a good point. I do not like the word "kettling" either. I am not entirely certain either where it came from or exactly what it means but the word that the police and the Government use is "containment". It is a tried-and-tested method of trying to contain those who are indulging in public disorder and disobedience. Part of the process is designed to allow people to cool off and, as I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, there was an exit to encourage those who wished to leave peacefully to do so. Yet it is often difficult to anticipate what is happening on the ground. The police have a difficult job to do and various means at their disposal to try to deal with the crowd as effectively as possible. Sometimes it does not go according to plan.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I want to make two brief points. First, on the containment or kettling that has just been mentioned, since this is a matter for police operations, would it be appropriate to ask the Independent Police Complaints Commission, when it looks at the incident, to examine whether kettling-or containment-is the right policy for a large demonstration? My second point, which has not been raised, is: how do we protect the statues around Parliament Square and in Trafalgar Square? It is a shame that there are those who deface the statues of some of those people who gave us the democracy on the basis of which they are protesting.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on my noble friend's first point I am sure that the IPCC will want to examine all aspects of this demonstration and to test the tactics that the police used on that day. While so many of those are of course operational matters for the commissioners, I am sure that it will look at that. On protecting the statues, it is difficult for me, standing at this Dispatch Box, to disagree with my noble friend but I dare say that the police cannot instruct that every single statue in central London be boarded up every time there is a demonstration. Yet something clearly went wrong on Thursday and it is for the police commissioner, the IPCC and the police, in all their internal reviews, to take a view on what happened and, I hope, to make sure that it does not happen again. Let me re-emphasise that if those demonstrators who came along had come for genuinely peaceful reasons, none of this would have been required. The blame for the violence lies entirely with those who came to central London to perpetrate it.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I continue to declare an interest as someone who was formerly elected deputy president of the National Union of Students. First, does my noble friend know whether the police have any estimate of the number of non-students taking part in the events? Secondly, on the basis of the degree of organisation shown by those who were not students, does he agree that "anarchist" is perhaps becoming a contradiction in terms?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there was a nice joke at the end there about anarchy and organisation. I note my noble friend's interest. I am sure that when he was vice-president of the NUS, he would not have organised a demonstration such as this.
	As for the direct question about how many non-students were in the crowd, I do not have that estimate, but it is clear that there were those present who were not only interested in violence but displayed thuggish behaviour, came from gangs, were well organised and splintered away. We shall have to wait for the review to see what those figures might be.

Viscount Tenby: My Lords-

Lord McNally: I am sorry; we have had 20 minutes.

Local Government: Finance
	 — 
	Statement

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles.
	"The spending review set out how the Government would tackle the catastrophic levels of public debt by delivering necessary reductions in public spending to accelerate deficit reduction and put the public finances back on a sustainable footing. This has involved difficult, but essential and responsible, decisions. Every part of the public sector needs to do its bit to help reduce the highest deficit in the United Kingdom's peacetime history and rapidly rising national debt that this Government have inherited.
	Last year, the Government borrowed one pound in every four that they spent. That was entirely unsustainable and risked our economic credibility. In contrast, our plan to eliminate the current structural deficit over five years has won the backing of the IMF, kept our credit rating steady and held interest rates down. The Office for Budget Responsibility's latest forecast confirms that we were right to take these steps. Its message is that Britain's economic recovery is now on track.
	I have sought to achieve a fair and sustainable settlement for local government by listening to what the local government community has asked for. This will be a progressive settlement and fair between different parts of the country. First, we have focused resources on the most vulnerable communities with significant social challenges. These are often the areas that are most reliant on government grant, so equal grant reductions would leave the poorest places worst off. We have insulated them by giving more weight to the levels of need within different areas and less weight to per capita distributions. We have also grouped councils into four bands, reflecting their dependence on central government. More dependent places will therefore see proportionally lower falls than more self-sufficient places.
	Secondly, we have listened to concerns about the front-loading of the reductions. The Local Government Association asked me to focus on local government's total spending power. That includes not just grants but also income from council tax and the National Health Service funding to support social care and benefit health. It said that reductions in spending power should be limited to 8 per cent. So far as possible, I have given the Local Government Association what it asked for. I have made sure that no authority will face more than an 8.9 per cent reduction in spending power in either 2011-12 or 2012-13. In fact, the average reduction in 2011-12 is 4.4 per cent. To fund this, I have transferred an extra £30 million of my department's budget to local government for 2011-12. I am also providing a grant of £85 million in 2011-12 and £14 million in 2012-13 to fund councils that would otherwise have seen sharper falls.
	The spending review also announced that the Government will protect the public from excessive council tax rises. We have set aside £650 million so every council can freeze council tax next year without hitting local services. We will provide councils that freeze council tax with the equivalent of a 2.5 per cent increase in funding instead. This will provide real help to hard-working families and people on fixed incomes, such as pensioners. The Government also want to ensure that council tax payers are protected against any authorities that reject the offer and impose excessive council tax rises. We will introduce a power for residents to veto excessive council tax increases through a referendum. In the mean time, the Government can take capping action against councils that propose excessive rises.
	When the House debates the final local government finance report next year, I will set out the capping principles. I will also shortly publish details of the figures that will be used to compare authorities' budgets between years, should capping be necessary. The previous Government had planned to cap the police authorities of Greater Manchester and Nottinghamshire after they set excessive increases in 2010-11. Subject to challenge, we will ensure that, should they decide not to freeze, neither can impose an increase of more than 2.5 per cent in 2011-12.
	This settlement also supports the Government's commitments to adult social care, providing councils with sufficient resources to protect people's access to care and deliver improved quality and outcomes. This includes £650 million of National Health Service funding in 2011-12 to support social care services, promoting integrated working between primary care trusts and local authorities, and benefiting the health system. The settlement directs more formula grant to authorities that deliver social care.
	Despite all the action we have taken, I recognise that local government still faces significant challenges. The vast majority of councils have been making sensible plans to address these. To support them I am restoring real power to councils-ending Whitehall interference and cutting red tape and the burdens of inspection and regulation. The localism Bill, published later today, will deliver a new democratic settlement to councils, overturning decades of central government control. For too long, councils have been barred from using their initiative and creativity to improve services. The limited power of well-being acted as an obstacle to cost savings, such as mutual insurance companies. Today's Bill will fundamentally change councils' freedom to act in the interest of their local communities through a new general power of competence. This will give councils the legal reassurance and confidence they need to innovate, drive down costs and deliver more efficient services.
	I am also giving councils much greater control over their budgets. With very few exceptions, we have ended grant ring-fencing so that councils can decide for themselves how their money should be spent. We will also allow them to borrow against future business rates receipts. Councils now have the freedom and responsibility to concentrate on what residents want: protecting front-line services. To support them, we have set aside £200 million to help councils modernise and reduce back-office costs. Councils can protect front-line services by sharing services and back-office functions, improving procurement to get more for less, bringing escalating senior pay under control, and using transparency to cut waste.
	Proactive councils are already taking the opportunity radically to rethink and transform their services. There are also substantial incentives available for councils to invest in longer-term projects. These include the new homes bonus and £1.4 billion for the regional growth fund over three years-a fund which goes well beyond the working neighbourhoods fund. There will now be a statutory consultation on the settlement for 2011-12 and I look forward to hearing representations from councils.
	Finally, this is a transitional settlement, using an inherited system. That is why we have set out details only of the next two years to strike a balance between the need to help councils plan and the need to reform the system. This system, based on redistributing business rates, makes councils heavily reliant on handouts from central government. Some depend on us for up to 75 per cent of their spending power. It is part of the trend that has led to some areas of the country becoming almost completely dependent on the public sector. It makes planning difficult, weakens local accountability, stifles local innovation and there is no incentive for councils to invest in their local economy since they will see most of the proceeds disappear. That is why I have set up a review of business rates, with the intention that in future local government will be able to keep more of what it collects. Ultimately, those councils which invest and support the local economy will be better able to finance themselves. The local government resource review will begin in the new year. I commend this Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement with every apparent evidence of conviction. This Statement, like most ministerial Statements these days, began with evidence that the Government have succumbed to a new medical condition-deficit attention disorder. There is, of course, a deficit, but the Government have misdiagnosed the cause, which was not government spending-until December 2008, they had pledged to equal it-and they have prescribed the wrong treatment: they have prescribed too much of it too quickly and it is too toxic.
	In interviews and Statements, the Secretary of State seems to pretend that cuts of unprecedented magnitude can be achieved relatively painlessly. He cites, for example, the use of reserves. If this were true, he should perhaps have a word with the Mayor of London, who is sitting on, to use the Secretary of State's phrase, £1.5 billion of reserves-about 15 per cent of the total-or, indeed, with the leader of the council of which the noble Baroness was herself a distinguished leader some time ago, Kensington and Chelsea, which has the second highest reserves of any other authority, at £100 million. It is not true that these reserves are available. Most of them are earmarked and cannot be used except for prescribed purposes, as I pointed out in a debate last week. The amount of unallocated reserves is a mere £3 billion out of a £68 billion spend.
	The Secretary of State has some other ideas-for example, that councils should jointly employ a chief executive or a finance director. These are facile and ridiculous suggestions. Of course, sharing services is important and it is taking place. Procurement needs to be shared across local government and shared services and joint procurement could, indeed, be extended across the public sector, but local government has demonstrated significant improvements over the past few years.
	The Statement makes it clear that there is to be a council tax freeze, but there is no freeze for council or social housing tenants, who face an increase of 6.8 per cent next year, nor is there a freeze for those people who will lose 10 per cent of their council tax benefit- £450 million is being taken from those people, despite the fact that £1.8 billion of council tax benefit goes unclaimed. The freeze lasts for two years at a cost, I think, of £1.3 billion. That leaves councils ultimately with a reduced tax base, which will have to be made good, but what will happen then? In any case, this comes from money that could be used to protect services now.
	The Statement makes no reference to the issue raised here and in another place about the capitalisation of redundancy and severance payments, which will be a significant burden on many local authorities. In a debate last week, I asked the noble Baroness how these payments could be made without affecting services if capitalisation was limited to £200 million nationally. I do not know whether she has briefing on that.
	The Statement is also silent about capital, where the reduction is 45 per cent and has potentially significant implications not just for councils and their services but for the private sector and jobs within it, particularly, though not exclusively, in the construction industry.
	There have been interesting comments in the run-up to this Statement from a variety of sources. A distinguished academic, Professor Tony Travers, in advance of the Statement, called it the harshest settlement since 1945, if not ever. He said that it was apocalyptic in the first year. Some movement has been made at the last minute to reduce the front-loading, which is welcome. It is, however, pretty limited. It may be not "Apocalypse Now" but "Apocalypse Not Just Yet", foreshadowing serious difficulties for many councils.
	In the very limited time that was available to my right honourable friend Caroline Flint and me to see the Statement, which we received only an hour ago, and to glance-it was impossible to do more-at the many tables appended to it, I applied my mind to the situation in the north-east of England, to which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will refer. A quick calculation produced a figure of £215 million of cuts in the next year, after the modest softening of the front-loading. However, in addition, there are the cuts that have already been sustained. This raises serious questions about what will happen. Perhaps the Minister can indicate whether she and the Government agree with Tony Travers's description of this as the harshest settlement of the post-war period.
	Can the Minister also say what impact the settlement will have on the voluntary sector? The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I returned home to a letter from the Newcastle Council for Voluntary Service, in which I declare an interest as an honorary vice-president. It had met the city council and had been apprised of the fact that the budget for supporting voluntary organisations-stemming in part from the working neighbourhoods fund-is to be reduced from some £10 million to £2.5 million. That is, in other words, a 75 per cent reduction for the Government's proclaimed partners in the big society-partners with which the city council, under different administrations, has for many years been pleased to work. Is there an estimate of the impact on the voluntary sector of the reductions?
	How do the Government and the Minister react to Birmingham's proposals to cut £70 million from its budget for carers, notwithstanding the provision made for supporting social care through money from the National Health Service, albeit that that programme would have to be agreed with the NHS and may represent continuing expenditure?
	Does the noble Baroness agree with her noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, who said:
	"These cuts will hurt. We know this means that there could be fewer libraries, more potholes going unrepaired ... and youth clubs closing"?
	Surely the tide of reductions in service across the country will be extremely significant.
	Finally, can the Minister confirm the statement made by the Prime Minister earlier this year, which clearly indicated that the cuts being contemplated under the spending review would not be restored, even when the economy improved? Does that not reveal the real nature of the Government's agenda?

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response. I cannot say that it was much different from what I would have expected, particularly from someone from the north-east who therefore knows how to call a spade a spade.
	No one is denying that this is a very tough settlement and, as we discussed briefly last Thursday, any Government were going to have to make substantial reductions in budgets across government, because of the deficit situation. I do not think that either side, even the Government who caused it, has said that there was no deficit. There was always going to have to be a way of dealing with it. The noble Lord opposite says that we have chosen the wrong way of doing it. There may be 50 ways of dealing with the situation and some, if not all, will affect some, if not all, of the services which are provided to the community and which defend our country, including social services There are some ways in which you can cut it and some ways in which you cannot; we have decided to cut our cloth in this way and we are dealing with the situation in what we believe is an appropriate manner.
	I shall try to go through the noble Lord's comments in order. He suggests that we have made particular play on the use of reserves. In the consultations that have taken place on the settlement, it is true that the Local Government Association was extremely concerned about front-loading and its impact. Indeed, it was its own suggestion that this should be based on a spending formula. That would mean that not only the government grant but also reserves, council tax and other grants would be taken into account. Where it has been estimated that councils have reserves that can be used, clearly there will be a reduction in the amount of grant. As the noble Lord said, some reserves are earmarked and some are not. However, it is anticipated that those who have reserves ought to be able to employ some of them as well.
	The noble Lord made some play on the changes to services that it is suggested should come about, such as the sharing of services, the sharing of chief executives and the sharing of human resources-in other words, changes to the organisation of councils. Huge sums may not be saved initially but there is no doubt that useful savings are to be made through councils sharing such services. As the noble Lord indicated, some councils have started to do that and others are looking to see how they should do it. My council, to which the noble Lord referred, is one of the pioneers in doing so. The sums saved will not be insignificant-they will make an impact-and, I am afraid, they are the future way forward.
	On the capitalisation of redundancy payments, yes, there will be a contribution of £200 million towards it. Councils will be able to ask for capitalisation and, if the amount that they require is not covered by the amount of their grant, there will be other ways, I am afraid, of finding the money.
	Tony Travers said that this is the harshest settlement since 1945. I do not know whether it is, but it is a difficult settlement for local government and we understand that. We understand, too, that different parts of the country will fare slightly less well than others. The north-east comes into that category, as the figures show.
	The Government very much support the voluntary sector and its work in the community. We believe that the voluntary sector has real attributes and we hope that local government will not target it with excessive reductions, as it will need to co-operate with the voluntary sector in the future. These cuts will hurt and will not be easy-no one will pretend otherwise-but I am sure that the noble Lord will tweak us about that in the future, if not today.

The Earl of Listowel: I warmly welcome what the Minister says about encouraging local authorities to share back-office functions and services and to join together in reducing procurement costs. That is challenging and I hope that the Government may assist local authorities as far as possible. Does the Minister recognise that, if youth services are cut and the number of youth clubs is reduced, that may severely impair Her Majesty's Government's determination to reduce prison numbers? The devil certainly makes work for idle young hands. As research evidence clearly shows, it is hugely costly to lock up young people and, once they have been locked up, 70 per cent will return within two years. Can she offer any comfort as regards youth services? Are the Government considering models of good practice in the area to give to local authorities?

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, youth clubs are invaluable and are run by the voluntary sector. Some of the other aspects that noble Lords have raised will come out of Home Office funding, not from local government. Nobody would disagree with a word that the noble Earl says. One wants to prevent people from going into prison because, once they are in, we all know that that just leads to further problems. The aspects that he raises are not really for the local government settlement.

Lord Shipley: My Lords, I declare an interest as the other half of the "Likely Lads" from Newcastle City Council, on which I am a councillor. I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement from the other place. There has been some listening to local government and, indeed, the settlement is, I think, a little better at first glance than what we had feared. I declare an interest also as vice-president of the Local Government Association. On the issue of front-loading, it wanted a limit on loss of spending power of 8 per cent, and the Secretary of State has agreed on 8.9 per cent.
	The word "progressive" was used. I have three questions on which I should like a response. First, is this not a progressive settlement in the sense that there has not now been a reallocation of grant from poorer to richer councils? Secondly, reference was made to the grant of £650 million to keep council tax increases at zero in the next financial year, but there is a question about that sum being built into the baseline for many years to come. If council tax is raised by 2.5 per cent, it is always in the baseline for the future. However, if the Government give the equivalent of 2.5 per cent, will that stay in the baseline? That matters. Thirdly, for further clarity on the capitalisation limit and the cost of redundancy, it is probable that the capitalisation limit will not prove sufficient. If it is not, councils will be required to reduce revenue and spending in the next financial year, which will in turn produce further cuts and redundancies. My noble friend referred to other ways in which that might be done; I was wondering what those other ways were.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked three clear questions. Is it a progressive settlement and reallocation? I think that we will take it year by year. This is a two-year settlement; whether it progresses on, I do not know. Whether it progresses in terms of how the grant is dealt with, we will have to wait and see. The £650 million is the repayment for 2.5 per cent of council tax if it is frozen. The question of whether that will be carried on next year will have to be decided. If it is, that will determine whether it is part and parcel of the baseline. As the noble Lord knows, capitalisation is treated as revenue by the Treasury, so whatever is spent goes back on to the revenue expectation. If that proves not to be sufficient, it will be a matter for each local authority to deal with.

Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top: Will the Minister confirm that areas of deprivation have lost out from more than just today's settlement, because other grants such as the working neighbourhoods grant went directly to the most deprived and vulnerable people? What will the Government do to make sure that some of those communities do not sink further away from being able to turn themselves around? That is what that money was used for. Where is the money coming from that is being used to dampen the worst excesses of the settlement? Which other areas in the rest of the department are losing in order to make sure that the dampening effect can be exerted on the settlement?

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we should be clear that the working neighbourhoods grant was just a three-year fund. There was no expectation-and no money was put aside-for it to continue for longer than three years. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but that is the situation. The previous Government could have decided to continue it, but they did not make that decision; they left it as a three-year grant.
	The noble Baroness asked where the other money will come from. We have set up a £1.4 billion regional growth fund, which will be administered by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. Councils and local enterprise partnerships will be able to bid for money from that fund, which will be available in particular for private sector-led growth. The expectation is that local councils will work closely with the private sector, not only in local enterprise partnerships but in general, so they will be able to lean on that sector for additional assets.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness encourage local authorities not to target voluntary organisations because of the work that they do to enhance the concept of the big society. Many of them were excited by the idea that the work that they do in communities would be increased. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned, many of them are finding already that their grants are being reduced and that the money that the Government say they have set aside for a transition is totally inaccessible. What will the Government do to ensure that groups that provide things such as visiting services to the elderly and mentoring services to the young-volunteer bureaux of all sorts-will be maintained so they can play their part?
	I have a second brief question. How will the Government ensure the maintenance of quality in care services when local authorities are trying to drive down pay levels and numbers of staff, in particular in areas where there are extremely vulnerable residents? I would be grateful to know this.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have already indicated this Government's strong support for the voluntary sector and their belief that the sector has a major role to play in the future. Indeed, the noble Baroness will see that in the Localism Bill, which has just been published, a big emphasis is placed on the need for local authorities to work with voluntary organisations and, indeed, for voluntary organisations and community associations to have a greater say in how things are run in conjunction with, or independently from, the local government sector. Therefore, there is no disagreement between us about that or about the value of the voluntary sector. The noble Baroness is right: there is a transitional fund of £100 million to help voluntary organisations. I think that the volunteer centres will fall into that, and that will help them to withstand some of the reductions in grant.
	I was asked about the care of the elderly. The work that is done will be very carefully monitored; we had some discussion about this on Thursday. It has to be made clear that the quality of the care is extremely important. It is not currently brilliant across the country, and we are very aware that efforts need to be made to ensure that it is universally good.

Lord Bates: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the party opposite had planned cuts of £52 billion to tackle the deficit? If they, as we have done, had ring-fenced the National Health Service and schools budgets, then it was always going to be a tough settlement, whoever was in power. Is it not also the case that this Government are reducing top-down bureaucracy through the comprehensive spending and performance reviews, freeing up councils from ring-fencing and giving them the potential to earn greater sums through business rates and the new homes bonus?

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question and I agree entirely with what he has said. It is correct that, with the removal of ring-fencing-I am sorry that the party opposite finds this so hilarious-councils will have access to a greater tranche, if not the entire tranche, of money regarding which they can make their own decisions. They have their own priorities in using the money. Except for the schools grant and the grant from the health service, there is no limitation on how they spend that money, and that will be of great benefit as they go forward. When the noble Lord opposite was the leader of a council, I was also the leader of a council and I am sure that he, like me, would have given his eye teeth to get his hands on the entire budget.

Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, as local government funds the voluntary sector-what the Government may want to call the big society-to the tune of £4.5 billion, the kinds of cuts that she has announced this afternoon cannot do anything but make the big society smaller?

Baroness Hanham: I do not agree with that. I think that we all have an aspiration to see the big society. We all want to see communities working with each other; we want to see charitable and voluntary organisations working better and doing more; and we want to see neighbourhoods and communities getting together to help each other. Therefore, I do not accept what the noble Lord says. I think that this philosophy will work with a reduction in resources because it will gain in momentum.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, did the Minister notice that the Government were accused by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, of suffering from a serious medical condition called "deficit obsession disorder"? Has she also noticed that a new disease is now prevalent on the Benches opposite? As my noble friend pointed out, the previous Government, when in government, had planned to make substantial reductions. However, now that they are in opposition, they have a serious medical condition called "ignore the deficit disorder". I listened carefully to the noble Lord and did not hear a single suggestion as to any reduction that could be made. Everybody knows that this has to be a very tough settlement. It is not the end of local government as we know it.
	A thousand years ago I was Minister for local government. I sense that over the years the constraints on local government and how it has to vie between different expenditures have grown and grown with greater Treasury control. The best hope and a big help for local government going into this difficult time is maximum flexibility so that it can use its funds in ways that make most sense within its own area. I hope that that will be possible within this settlement.

Baroness Hanham: I thank my noble friend for that. He will also recall that thousands of years ago I knew him when he was Minister for local government. I am not quite sure what that says about either of us.
	I accept what my noble friend says. First, the Opposition have not offered anything by way of a useful contribution to how this deficit will be dealt with. We have had considerable carping but no ideas have been offered as to what they would have done instead to deal with the deficit that they caused. Of course, the flexibility needed to deal with budgets, policy and organisation is absolutely essential. That will come directly out of the Localism Bill and how we look forward to local government working in the future.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, I deprecate the very last minute at which the data came forward. It is a bit like the late arrival of the Localism Bill; it shows a Government not quite in control of their agenda.
	We reject the assertion that these are necessary reductions in public expenditure, just repeated by the noble Lord. Of course, the deficit must be dealt with and, of course, we, as an opposition, have set out credible means of dealing with it. One example is that we would not be spending £2 billion to £3 billion on unnecessary top-down reorganisation of the National Health Service. Even if we were to accept the programme of overall expenditure set out by the Government-which we do not-how do they justify local government having such a savage component to deal with? It is worse than for any other department. What is the justification for that?
	The noble Baroness spoke of the focus on the most vulnerable, and I understand that the Government have come up with this revenue spending power comparison-looking at like for like in the current year and next year. I understand that it includes council tax potential and grants. Incidentally, I have a question for the noble Baroness along the way. When is a transfer from central government a grant and when is it a handout-an unfortunate term? To get back to the comparison on revenue spending power between authorities, taken with the assertion that we are focusing on the most deprived, why is it, when comparing the current year with next year, on the Government's own figures, that Hackney loses 8.9 per cent, or £33 million, and Kensington and Chelsea loses 5.5 per cent, or £11 million? How is it that Tower Hamlets loses 8.9 per cent, or £34 million, but Barnet loses 2.6 per cent at just £7.7 million? How can Hartlepool lose 8.9 per cent, or something like £10 million, and Rutland 2.2 per cent? How does the noble Baroness justify that within the parameters of the settlement?

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, first, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, the former Minister, that I sat on that Front Bench all the way through the previous Government and I always complained about the lack of time that one was given for dealing with a Statement. Never ever did I receive a Statement more than about 40 minutes before I was due to answer it. So there will be no lessons from across there with that complaint.
	The necessary reductions come about because of the deficit. I cannot keep on saying that-we must all deal with the deficit and deal with it we will. We will reduce the deficit more quickly than the party opposite ever indicated it would do.
	As regards the reductions in grant for Tower Hamlets, Kensington and Chelsea or wherever, their spending power, which is how the Local Government Association wanted to present it, means that reserves and council tax are taken into account. The reductions of 8.9 per cent will depend on how much they can contribute to that, how much council tax they get, how much revenue can come from elsewhere and how much comes from government. The reductions would have been higher all round if extra money had not been made available for the transitional period. However, now no council will lose more than 8.9 per cent. It has been done on a very fair and measured formula to ensure that people do not have big swings within their council tax settlements across the country. They should not be too great.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, the next Statement not yet having started in the other place, I beg to move that we adjourn during pleasure for 10 minutes.
	Sitting suspended.

Climate Change: Cancun
	 — 
	Statement

Lord Marland: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the outcome of the United Nations climate change conference in Cancun. The Statement is as follows.
	"The House will remember the disappointment of last year's conference in Copenhagen, and in particular its failure to agree a comprehensive and legally binding global treaty to supplement or replace the Kyoto protocol.
	Expectations for the Cancun conference were not high. After Copenhagen, it seemed as if the very principle of multilateralism itself was on trial. Our objectives, therefore, were modest. We aimed to demonstrate that the United Nations process was back on track. We also hoped to put in place some of the building blocks for an eventual global statement and to rebuild momentum.
	I am delighted to say that our expectations were not just met, but exceeded. The conference agreed a series of linked decisions under both its tracks: the Kyoto protocol; and the framework for reaching a new and more comprehensive agreement. Emissions reduction pledges made under the Copenhagen accord by both developed and developing countries provided a valuable starting point and have been brought into the UN climate convention framework. We can now assess the overall policy pledges against the requirements of science.
	These decisions provide a solid foundation for further work. For the first time, there is an international commitment to,
	'deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions',
	to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. This includes processes for adopting targets for peaking emissions as soon as possible, and substantially reducing them by 2050.
	The conference also adopted decisions to develop systems for measuring, reporting and verifying emission reductions and actions in line with countries' commitments. This is essential to confidence in each other's actions. Developing countries will get access to low-carbon technology and help with adaptation to climate change. Market-based mechanisms will be considered to deliver effective reductions in emissions at least cost.
	Forestry was a key area. The conference agreed the framework for REDD plus-reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation-through which developing countries will be paid for keeping trees standing rather than logging them. The conference also made progress on rules for accounting for land use, land use change and forestry under the Kyoto protocol, an issue that was too difficult to be settled at Kyoto and has remained problematic ever since.
	The conference also agreed the establishment of a green climate fund to support policies and activities in developing countries. The fund will be governed by a board with equal representation from developed and developing countries, and its finances will be managed by the World Bank. A transitional committee will be established to design the institutions and operations of the fund, and we aim to see that make rapid progress. The conference endorsed the commitment made by developed countries at Copenhagen to mobilise at least $100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.
	The conference did not settle the future of the Kyoto Protocol, nor did it adopt a new and more comprehensive treaty incorporating all countries. Neither outcome was realistically possible this year. Nevertheless, the agreements reached at Cancun represent a significant step forward, particularly given that it seemed possible, even as late as Thursday, that the conference would break up over precisely that issue. In the end, every country represented there, with the exception of Bolivia, felt able to support the outcomes.
	There remains much to do in the run-up to the 2011 climate conference in Durban. Given the outcome of Cancun, however, we can be far more confident than seemed possible just a few weeks ago.
	I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating the Government of Mexico, who were responsible for hosting and chairing the conference. The diplomatic skill, political courage and dogged determination of Foreign Minister Espinosa and her team were responsible in very large part for its success. I was happy to be able to support her in co-chairing some of the negotiating groups which addressed the key issues.
	I also wish to pay tribute to the British team of negotiators. Even though our delegation was one of the smallest of those of the G8 countries, its members played a key role in many of the detailed negotiations, often leading for the EU. The climate diplomacy carried out by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the year leading up to the conference clearly helped to lay the groundwork for a successful conclusion.
	Tackling climate change should transcend party politics. Britain has built a strong reputation internationally as a forward-looking country, and I want to thank my predecessor for his work in helping to achieve this. I was also pleased to be able to include in the UK delegation representatives of the Scottish and Welsh Assembly Governments.
	In conclusion, the coalition Government are determined to tackle the accelerating threat of climate change. We intend to demonstrate how a successful and prosperous low-carbon economy can be developed in the UK and EU, providing employment, exports and energy security and reducing emissions. The Energy Bill published last week and the consultation paper on electricity market reform later this week are key components. So, too, is the adoption of a more ambitious target for reducing EU carbon emissions, and in that context I welcome the Spanish Government's recent declaration of support for a 30 per cent reduction by 2020. We are pressing for an ambitious package of measures to be agreed by EU leaders in February next year to create the infrastructure and incentives for a faster move to a low-carbon economy within Europe.
	On the international front, we will build on this momentum at Cancun. There is much still to be achieved, but we can now look forward with renewed optimism to the Durban conference next year. As the representative of one NGO said:
	"Cancun may have saved the process but it did not yet save the climate".
	That is true, but in saving the process, it represents a triumph for the spirit of international co-operation in tackling an international threat. I am sure the whole House will join me in welcoming that".

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, we on this side welcome today's Oral Statement on the outcome of the climate change conference in Cancun. Although I understand that there was some interest in having a Written Statement, we agree that it is appropriate to have an Oral Statement on such a critical issue, and for your Lordships' House to have the opportunity to comment and ask questions. So, on this point, I am grateful to the Minister and his ministerial colleagues for bringing this before the House today.
	There is, as the Minister rightly said, a lot of cynicism about the likely outcome of the Cancun conference, but the talks did not break down, as many had feared, and we should welcome the progress that has been made. We join the Minister in congratulating the Mexican Government on creating an environment conducive to discussion and agreement which enabled the Governments of the world to come together to try to agree a common statement.
	So, what has been announced as an achievement at Cancun? Leaders of the international community have now agreed to a form of words which the Minister has outlined-a commitment to deep cuts in global greenhouse emissions and to hold any increase in the global average temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius. There is a long-term plan for reducing emissions by 2050. The establishment of a green climate fund to assist developing nations, although still lacking in some detail, is to be welcomed. It recognises the different starting points and challenges faced by developing nations, and the ways that we can act responsibly to support them to tackle climate change.
	We also note the Government's commitments, made in an international arena, to act on deforestation. This clearly overrides the Secretary of State's earlier announcement that the Government intend to sell 15 per cent of our forest estate over the spending review period-to be made easier through the Government's proposals in the Public Bodies Bill-which will remove the protections for forestry land sales. I take comfort from the Government's international commitments which mean that they will now be amenable to amendments on this part of the Bill, or that we may perhaps have the benefit of seeing the Government table their own amendments in the new year.
	We all support progress made at international level to mitigate the impacts of climate change. We hope that the statement of intent made in Cancun will build on the provisions made in Copenhagen last year, but we also have to recognise that we have to do so much more to ensure that it paves the way for more ambitious aims in South Africa next year. At some stage we have to fully realise our ambitions. Your Lordships will know the importance that we place on this issue, and the commitment shown by the last Government and the last Prime Minister, as the Minister has acknowledged. I congratulate those who have managed to ensure that there is meaning to this agreement, but I also share the disappointment of many that it does not go nearly far enough. This is an area where the Government need to step up and take a lead internationally.
	I have three questions for the Minister. First, the Secretary of State has already suggested that the European emissions reduction targets should be increased to 30 per cent by 2020. He recently issued a statement with Germany and France pressing for this change. The Committee on Climate Change reported just last week in support of this aim. Can the Minister tell the House if this is the extent of EU support and what steps he and the Government are taking in Europe on this issue? The climate fund to assist developing nations is a welcome step, but we need to have assurances that funding will be in place. Can the Minister give us further details on how finance will be secured and how it will be allocated? I know the Minister is aware of my concern that we have agreed a framework but have yet to fill in the details. What action will the Government take, leading into the South African conference, to ensure that we have those details and can reach agreement?
	We have agreements, but we need to make sure that those promised actions are taken or those agreements will not be a foundation for change. Developing countries need this life-saving finance, because their citizens cannot wait. Finally, we need to see leadership from Britain and Europe over the next 12 months before the countries meet again in South Africa. The Government have our full support in seeking meaningful international agreements.

Lord Marland: I thank the noble Baroness for her charitable remarks. It is gratifying to see such harmony among our Benches on this subject. She is quite right that we have an awful lot to do. This is the starting block. As I said earlier, there was not great expectation that Cancun would achieve anything. It has achieved broad agreement from 193 countries, which is no mean feat. I pay my own compliments to the Secretary of State, Christopher Huhne, and to Gregory Barker, the Minister for Climate Change, both of whom played a very active role in getting agreement. The Secretary of State was asked by the Mexican Government to lead on brokering compromises, and it was no mean achievement.
	As for the noble Baroness's specific questions, the 30 per cent target is absolutely right. The Secretary of State made a statement on that matter. As I said earlier in the Statement, the Spanish have now agreed to support that and there is widespread agreement building within Europe to support that very ambitious target.
	As for the green climate fund, it is early days. The advisory group on finance met and set up a range of options on where the money could come from. It can come from government budgets, an emissions auction process or from the private sector. The combination of those three will be very beneficial to creating this fund. There is clearly a lot more detailed work to put into that, but there is a commitment to work on it in the run-up to Durban.
	I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's questions. I thank her for her generous statements. I do not intend to answer on the subject of the Forestry Commission, as it is not within my remit, but I thank her for the question anyway.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I think that the contrast between this year and last year has been absolutely excellent, and I am sure most of the House would echo that, but may I press the Minister on one or two areas? I should like to have a little more detail on verification, which many of us believe is one of the most important areas that was discussed. Has China in particular now agreed that verification procedures are not just permissible but something that it will encourage, and that they will be part of any future regime and will no longer be resisted?
	On REDD and deforestation in general, we are all aware of the still huge rate of deforestation. It might not be quite as great as it was in the past few years, but it is still there. Will the Minister indicate when this regime will come in and when deforestation will start to decelerate in a very major way, given that these forests will not be replaced? Once they are gone, they are gone.
	Lastly, I always understood that these UN agreements had to be unanimous for them to work. Will the Minister explain why Bolivia stood against this agreement, and how that leads the agreement? The great lesson to me is to keep one's expectations low and then maybe enlightenment will come somehow and things will be delivered. Whether this will happen for Durban next year is, of course, the next question, but I add my congratulations to the ministerial team and to the Mexican Government on the excellent outcome.

Lord Marland: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I have always kept my expectations low throughout my life; it is a very good starting point for anything. Look where I am now-noble Lords might ask where.
	My noble friend quite rightly asked three very valuable questions. I will, if I may, deal with forestry and deforestation first. The agreement was to map out the extent of forestry at the moment so that we had a baseline from which to start discussions in Durban and the period running up to it. It set a formula and a place to start from.
	Secondly, even though I was not there, I understand that Bolivia did not agree to the target because its commitments and targets are much more aggressive. I understand that it is looking for no more than a 1 degree-Celsius increase in emissions, and I think it felt that it had a more aggressive timetable.
	Thirdly, the verification system is a commitment from all 193 countries that subscribed to verification-so China is included in this-to set a framework and a platform over the four-year period and be transparent about the standards that they are setting in their own countries. The plan is to be able to verify every four years.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, will the Minister accept congratulations on the Government's input into this conference and on the way in which both the previous Government and this Government have refused to be discouraged by the outcome at Copenhagen? I think that that was admirable.
	On verification, does the Minister not agree that if there is to be a legally binding agreement, which is, I think, the objective of many, it will be sustainable only if there is a proper international verification process? Will he say whether the European Union could take a lead in the months ahead in shaping up the sort of international verification process that will be necessary if business and the electorates are to have any confidence in this?
	Secondly, will the Minister comment on the fact that the UN now seems to have broken out of the tyranny of consensus that enabled a very small number of spoilers very nearly to wreck the proceedings at Copenhagen, and that that lesson needs to be learnt and carried forward so that in future we do not allow a very small number of countries with possibly quite different interests to block the interests of the large majority?

Lord Marland: A legally binding agreement is very difficult to achieve, as we have seen from Copenhagen and Cancun. Do we, in reality, need a legally binding agreement? Are we not better just having an agreement under which we transparently announce the requirements for verification and for reporting, and for all those sorts of issues? If they are transparent, people can see what progress is being made. Of course, we would all like a legally binding agreement, but it is rather a big ask among the 193 countries, with their different laws.
	One of the very valuable things about Cancun was how well team Europe did at the table, as opposed to at Copenhagen where it was viewed to have been marginalised. The European team's endeavour was much greater at Cancun. As I said earlier, our own Secretary of State and officials who now lead team Europe were very much at the forefront of negotiations, and I know that they are determined to press for a tight strategy for these processes to come to fruition rather than just for general talking.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, I join my noble friend in his satisfaction with an outcome that binds no country to anything at all. In that event, however, does he not agree that the position of the United Kingdom, which, alone in the world, has bound itself legally to a massive decarbonisation agreement at huge cost and by a specific date, is utterly incomprehensible, not to say quixotic?

Lord Marland: As I think the noble Baroness said, there are a few cynics in the House, although they might claim to be realists. I believe that the fundamental Conservative principle is that we put the taxpayer first, as the noble Lord so excellently did when I worshipped him as the great reforming Chancellor. However, he also knows that Britain is a great country because it has shown leadership, and this is what we are doing; we are putting Britain at the forefront of this by showing leadership.

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale: My Lords, I welcome the Statement and the outcome at Cancun, but I particularly welcome the Government's approach to engaging properly with the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government in advance of, and during, the summit. That is the right way for the Government of the United Kingdom to handle these matters. However, I have two questions for the Minister. First, given the way in which the major developed countries of the world have withdrawn from the commitments made at Gleneagles-another summit, on global poverty-how will it be possible to ensure that those who need to make a contribution to the global fund will carry through that commitment and ensure that those resources are available?
	Secondly, will the Government of the United Kingdom ensure that their international development funding and policies work coherently with the approach that was agreed last week and the way in which that will be implemented following Durban next year?

Lord Marland: I, too, pay tribute to the input from the National Assemblies for the great work that they have done in getting to this point and in helping with these negotiations.
	On the green fund, it is clear that countries must honour their commitments. It is fundamental that, in the build-up to establishing this fund, feet are held to the fire as to the exact contribution that countries will make. However, 193 out of 194 countries signing up to something and the transparent way in which it will be done will be a very good starting point.
	Our own Government have committed £1.5 billion as fast-track funding between 2010 and 2012. Our ongoing commitment is part of a £2.9 billion commitment over a five-year period-we will certainly not go back on that commitment-of which £300 million will be allocated to the deforestation issue.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, the Statement acknowledges that levels of emissions of carbon dioxide continue to rise, despite all the conferences, meetings and decisions to date. When do the Government realistically expect the rate in the rise of carbon dioxide to begin to decrease?

Lord Marland: I thank the right reverend Prelate for that. Unfortunately, I do not have my charts in front of me, but I would be happy to provide him with some of the analysis to answer that question. I thank the Church of England for the example that it has set through step change in driving the church towards nil carbon emissions in the near future. Again, that is leading by example.

Lord Prescott: I attended the Kyoto conference and those at Cancun and Copenhagen. The atmosphere and organisation was fundamentally different, for which we offer our congratulations to the Mexican Government. However, the Minister may recall that in a debate in this House on climate change I put forward my concerns that the Prime Minister had said that he wanted a legal agreement at Cancun. I did not think that that was possible and announced the five or six principles that I thought were important to finding agreement based on a voluntary agreement and not the legal framework. I must say that the Government have achieved that and, perhaps for the first time in my life, I offer a little congratulation to the Government and the Secretary of State, Mr Huhne, to whom I explained my plan on the aeroplane.
	However, I am a little concerned about the Statement when it talks about ambition and cuts of 30 per cent et cetera in carbon. Ambition can be the defeat of the good. I worry about the Durban conference and that we may make the mistake that we made at Copenhagen; namely, that we get far too ambitious in our demands. Therefore, for the South African conference, I fear that 12 months will not be sufficient to deal with all these detailed negotiations that took four years after Kyoto. Will the Minister consider and express within the European Union the view that we are thinking of stopping the clock on the 2012 date set for Kyoto in order that South Africa and Durban does not appear to be a failure as occurred at Copenhagen?

Lord Marland: No one has done more for these conferences than the noble Lord, Lord Prescott. In fact, the Secretary of State has told me of the pleasant fireside chat that he had with the noble Lord in Cancun. I do not think that "fireside" is the right word-perhaps it should be "poolside". The noble Lord is absolutely right to send a note of caution. He has been at the forefront of negotiations for a long time. He has understood that this has to be slowly, slowly, despite the fact that we want to go quickly. However, I go back to what I said. We must set high standards for ourselves if others are to follow. I do not think that he would disagree with that.

Lord Howard of Lympne: My Lords-

Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, while acknowledging that getting so many nations to agree-

Lord Howard of Lympne: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on their Statement. As someone who had the honour of representing the Government at the first earth summit in Rio in 1992, I well recollect how difficult these conferences can be. Now that the momentum lost at Copenhagen has to some extent been resumed as a result of the efforts which my noble friend has described, will he tell us a little more about what our Government, together with our partners in the European Union, intend to do between now and the Durban conference in order to maintain that momentum?

Lord Marland: Again, I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Howard who was instrumental in persuading the Americans to come on board in Rio in 1992 and has great experience of these matters. As he rightly knows-he would have learnt this at Rio-and as we have heard since, it is our determination, working with the EU, to show real leadership in this and to press hard to turn what is a loose but generally agreeable statement into something practical. We should not set high expectations for ourselves to be ratified in legal language by Durban, but ensure that the transparency issues, which are critical to this agreement, the production and announcement of the transparency and how the targets being set by each country are established, are held up to public attention.

Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, in view of the critical importance of rain forests in the general effort to achieve the objectives that the Governments have set themselves, will my noble friend say a little more about REDD-plus? Given all these good intentions and a widespread understanding about the importance of rain forests, their destruction still continues at a considerable rate. Little effort seems to be made to slow down the production of soya beans, palm oil and cattle ranching. When will we get effective, tangible action on the ground?

Lord Marland: It is absolutely fundamental that the Brazilians and the Congo Government associated themselves with this agreement. Those two countries have a massive forest issue. It is not possible for me to give fixed dates, but, for once, we have an agreement that something will be done. We are going to establish a map to show where the forests lie, which we hope will form the boundaries for no-go areas for deforestation.

Lord Soley: My Lords, although this is a moment on which we can congratulate the Government and the other Governments concerned with this, I would-

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords-

Earl Attlee: My Lords, we have plenty of time. I suggest that we hear the noble Lord, Lord Soley, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.

Lord Soley: I am very grateful. I rarely insist, but I was right this time. Although it is right that we congratulate Governments at this time, it is important to remember why we are more optimistic now about our ability to deal with this problem than we were 10 or 20 years ago. It is because not just Governments, but industries, public and private organisations, as well as individuals, are now much more seized of the seriousness of this. All are playing a major part in trying to drive down emissions. We should encourage that and perhaps give more credit to those industries, organisations and individuals who are making a big effort now in a way that was not happening before.

Lord Marland: I totally agree with the noble Lord. The encouraging thing about Cancun is that it reverses the trend and brings real momentum back into the process and the understanding that we have to reduce our emissions as a result of climate change.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like to raise two matters. First, there are varying estimates as to the number of people who attended the conference. As far as I can see, there were between 10,000 and 25,000. It would be useful if the Minister could give us the number. Secondly, I thought I heard him say that the cost of the operation of helping underdeveloped countries would be $100 billion. If that is correct, what proportion of that figure will be met by the United Kingdom?

Lord Marland: I cannot respond to the question of how many people were in Cancun. I am afraid that I am not the arbiter. All I can tell the noble Lord is that in order to reflect the current economic circumstances, our department sent 70 people to Copenhagen and 46 to Cancun. The noble Lord is right about the $100 billion fund. That ambitious target has been set for the green climate fund. As yet the apportionment of that, or the contributions to it, has not been ratified. As I said earlier, the Advisory Group on Finance has met and has developed a pathway of where that figure can be resolved.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 
	Copy of the Bill
	Explanatory Notes
	Amendments
	7th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee 
	6th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights

Committee (4th Day) (Continued)

Amendment 36
	 Moved by Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
	36: Clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert ", and
	(c) persons who have attained the age of 16 on the date of the referendum"

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: My Lords, this amendment would allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in the referendum due to take place in 2011. Only a minority of 18 year-olds voted in 2010 and it must be a major aim of us all to increase their turnout so that they have a real input into decisions that will affect the whole of their lives. Indeed, although he is not in his place, I was just talking to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, who mentioned that, during the referendum held in 1975 to ask whether we should stay in Europe, his wife had asked their 11 year-old son how she should vote on the ground that it was his future that she was voting on rather than her own. As it happens, she is still very much with us, but she took her son's guidance, since it was about his future. That, I think, was a wise move.
	For the Labour Party, I fear that our manifesto promised only to put the issue of voting at 16 to a free vote rather than giving it the full commitment that I think it deserves. However, Liberal Democrat manifestos not just this year but also in 2001 and 2005 have been clearly in favour of giving 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote, so I look forward to support from those Benches today. The Electoral Reform Society has long argued for this-the society is, needless to say, following the Bill's progress with interest. Perhaps less surprisingly, the UK Youth Parliament also supports the Votes at 16 campaign, as does the 2006 Joseph Rowntree Power inquiry, which recommended that not only the age of voting but the age for candidacy should be brought down to 16. They cannot all be wrong. Our citizens can leave school, get married, join the Armed Forces and, indeed, have the great luxury of paying tax at the age of 16, so they do indeed have taxation without representation.
	Because of the coalition's decision to go the full five years before the next election, there will be many more new voters at that general election than when elections are held closer together. The question of the system to be used will therefore play a key part in the preparation for the 2015 general election. It will be the first general election for thousands of our fellow citizens-those young people born between 1992 and 1997. This is a generation of vastly different expectations and experience, with different hopes and aspirations from our own. Indeed, I am three and a half times the age of an 18 year-old and as far away from a 16 year-old as the period from the start of the 20th century to the end of Second World War hostilities. It is no good looking back to our own, long-distant youth to think what might have motivated us to vote in the first election after we had turned 18, although probably for most Members of this House the age was 21. For me, it was somewhere between the two. Alas, I missed out on getting the key of the door, or the first ballot paper, when I turned 18 because at that point the voting age was 21; by the time I had turned 21, the voting age had dropped to 18, so the great day had passed me by. Nevertheless, I remember clearly the significance of my first vote. I was 20 years and three months when I got the right to vote and twenty and a half when I cast that first vote, so I did not wait too long.
	For today's young generation there has been a growth of interest in public policy, if not, I fear, in party activity. Young people were fully involved in the Make Poverty History campaign. They have taken up the green agenda faster than many of us. Last week, school students told us to preserve their sports facilities and classes. Today, they are telling us to continue with the education maintenance allowance. This week, we also see youngsters thinking of the following generations of students by involving themselves in the tuition fee debate. We have a choice over such activity and interest. We can encourage young people to channel their concern about public policy into voting and democratic behaviour or we can leave them frustrated on the streets. My choice is to involve them. Building on their current interest could be a turning point in their future role in the big society, of which elections are an important part.
	The great opportunity of the referendum is that it is not about the usual issues on which young people's parents vote. It is not for the existing MP or for a change of MP. It is not for one of the traditional parties, which may not resonate much with them. It is a new question for a new generation and very possibly the beginning of a new politics. The referendum will decide how those who are aged 18 in 2015 will cast their vote, so why not let them, as 16 and 17 year-olds in 2011, cast their vote in the referendum on how the vote for the general election will be conducted in 2015? I beg tomove.

Lord Soley: My Lords, I rise in support of my noble friend Lady Hayter. Let me begin by perhaps anticipating the Minister's response. Despite his commitment to his party as part of the coalition, he will say that it is not possible to do this in the Bill, that the Electoral Commission would not approve and that these young people would not be able to vote in the referendum anyway because the Bill will not allow time for that. He said much the same about the right to vote for prisoners. My reason for rising to speak is to say that this argument is based on a fallacy and that this Bill ought to be something much wider. It ought to be about constituency and voting reform generally, but it is not. It was put together in order to preserve the coalition. That is what it is about. It is concerned with enhancing the coalition's chances of staying in government for a bit longer. I have to say that that is not good enough.
	If the Minister thinks that I am the only person who is saying that the coalition Government are not allowing time for the Bill-they ought to allow time, so that we could consider the wider issue of votes at 16, which is his party's policy, or indeed votes for prisoners, which is also his party's policy-let me quote from a letter sent to me and to others by one of his honourable friends in the House of Commons, Andrew Turner, the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight. He says the following in relation to a different part of the Bill:
	"Debate in the Commons was so curtailed that I was unable to speak on this subject during Committee Stage and only for five minutes during Report Stage".
	In a sense, that sums up the problem. There is a case for votes at 16, although I will touch on that only briefly, since my noble friend summed up my position in her remarks, just as there is a case for votes for prisoners following the European Court of Human Rights ruling. However, there is no room in this Bill for doing things easily unless-this is the point-the Government accept that the legislation ought to be about reform and not just about preserving the coalition's position.
	Perhaps I may deal briefly with why votes at the age of 16 are important. For many years I have felt that, if you can serve in the Armed Forces, you ought to be able to vote. Also, as my noble friend pointed out, if you pay taxes, you ought to be able to vote. However, the important point concerns the Armed Forces. Secondly, it should be understood that many young people start to get interested in politics at this age. However, if they are not allowed to express that interest, if anything they are put off later. It is no accident that in this Chamber either last Friday or in a previous Youth Parliament, I cannot remember which, the young people voted in favour of votes at 16. I might add something that will encourage Members on both sides: they also voted by a majority of between 60 and 64 for a largely appointed House as opposed to an elected House. There are all those wise young people out there, wanting to vote and to keep an appointed House because they recognise some of the strengths of that. The arguments in favour were interesting because the young people were wise enough to support the concept of, at least, a largely appointed House.
	I suppose that we all think of our own backgrounds. My noble friend was remembering where she was for her first election, albeit with some uncertainty. I remember mine clearly. It was in 1955. When I had campaigned in the previous election, I was belted round the ear by someone with a rolled-up poster who told me that I was too young to be thinking about such things. All that did was to reinforce my view that I ought to think about it a bit harder, if only to deal with people who belted you round the ear with a rolled-up poster. There is a genuine interest. Certainly, I was very interested in what was happening internationally. We had come out of the Second World War, which had influenced me very much, as it had so many of us were who were born, as I was, just before it. If you grow up under the shadow of dictatorship, you know the importance of democracy. That argument was profoundly important to me. It always has been and still is.
	I should not need to exercise these arguments with the Minister, because his party supports this policy and I believe that I am right in saying that he does. The only thing standing in the way is this attempt to get through a Bill that is about the survival of the coalition, not the reform of the parliamentary system. The Government really need to do better on this. It is just not good enough to duck this issue in the way that he ducked the issue of votes for prisoners.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend Lady Hayter. I came to this issue rather sceptically but changed my mind when I was chairing the Power inquiry, as we took evidence from around the country and heard from young people and their teachers. One thing that this House should have in mind is the alarming way in which we in this country are losing the habit of voting. What we are finding is that young people, if they do not establish a habit of voting, do not turn to it. People would say to us, "Well, they soon start voting once they start having children of their own or a mortgage, or when they start paying tax"-often, they were Members of Parliament. Yet the reality is that, if the habit is not established before, very often people do not end up voting at all.
	Teachers were telling us that already, in schools, there is talk before age 16 about why the vote is so important and about the history of the vote. Then there is a gap, where a substantial number of our young are still not staying on at school to 18, so when they leave school there is a period of non-participation in the public arena. They do not vote, so they never establish the habit of voting. We should move from knowing about voting at school-understanding its history and its importance in our firmament and why it is at the heart of our democracy that people should vote-to harnessing that while people are still young and interested. That is vital.
	Hearing from young people who were clearly interested in how their country worked and in the issues of the day, yet then hearing from teachers about the terrible loss of interest between the ages of 16 and 18-sometimes, it is as long as four years before these young people get the chance to vote-was a lesson that convinced me that people lose the habit of voting. We should take this opportunity to reform the system as soon as we can. I know that many people, certainly among the Liberal Democrats, share this view. We should be harnessing that interest in politics before it is lost. Now is a good time to do it, when we are in the process of engaging in some reform of our electoral system.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Kennedy referred to instilling the habit of voting. My fear is that the subject of this referendum will instil the habit of not voting. I certainly do not detect any overwhelming interest from the younger generation in the alternative vote or in any other technical form of voting in this country. If they do not vote on the first occasion when they are given the opportunity to do so, the danger is that they will form a habit of not voting. That is the real problem.
	The genesis of this whole thing is the Faustian pact between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The Liberals have this magnificent obsession with structures. It is not an obsession that a great number of people in this country share but they consider it the unfinished business of Lloyd George. They were prepared to do anything to change the voting system, while allowing the Conservative Party to have free rein in all its attacks on our welfare system.
	I cannot imagine young people for a moment being interested in going to this vote. From over 30 years as a Member of Parliament in the other place, trying desperately to get people to vote in difficult parts of the constituency-we sometimes had, alas, a very sad turnout-I cannot imagine even a tiny proportion of those individuals bothering to vote and, if they do not, I certainly see no serious interest or enthusiasm among younger people. That is my starting point.
	However, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hayter. She led me along a silken path with her felicitous words until I was almost persuaded; alas, not quite. I have form in this, because many years ago I promoted a Private Member's Bill in the other place to reduce the voting age from 21 to 18. I was before my time, as it were, because it was before that view became a consensus. Sadly, the Bill was talked out, but there was a very logical case to move from 21 to 18 at that point because, about then, the legal age of majority had been changed-I believe that it was by a royal commission-and it was wholly consistent with that that the voting age should also be reduced from 21 to 18.

Lord Rooker: I should like to bring my noble friend Lord Anderson around to supporting my noble friend Lady Hayter because, while I am sceptical as well, this is not about votes at 16. It is about allowing the people who will be 18 at the end of a fixed-term Parliament to vote for the voting system that will be used then. If it were not for the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, which gives this some intellectual credence-and it is the same gang bringing in that Bill-we would not be asking the people who we know will be 18 at the end of this Parliament to choose the voting system. This is not about votes at 16, so my noble friend can support my other noble friend if this matter is pushed.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: I look on my noble friend's intervention with considerable respect, as I do all the matters that he raises. Clearly, he raises an important point. The essence of what I was saying is that, whereas from 21 to 18 there was a logical stopping point, I see no such point in going from 18 to 16. Indeed, I ask rhetorically where it will stop. The real reformers-the people trying desperately to be radical-will ask, "Why stop at 16?". It may not perhaps go down to babes and sucklings but next they will suggest, incrementally, "Well, having had 16, why not 15 because we want to encourage people to take part in politics?". They will ask, "After all, this is a newly politicised generation; did we not see schoolchildren on the streets last week?". Yes, but I am not sure whether those schoolchildren-we are now, I think, meant to call them school students-were or are likely to be worried about alternative votes, or a voting system of STV, or whatever it is.

Lord Soley: Would my noble friend bear in mind that at age 16 you can serve in the Armed Forces and you pay taxes? That is a good dividing line.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: That is one factor. One could say, for example, why not 17? That is the age at which one can be on the front line in our armed services. One can make a plausible, or semi-plausible, case for reducing the age from 18 to 17, then to 16, but although there are pointers at each little watering place and stopping point along the way, in my judgment there is no sufficient reason to say that one should stop at 16.
	I have heard the argument in favour. Of course there are some points to be made for it, but in my judgment it would be wrong in general and, in response to my noble friend Lady Kennedy, certainly wrong to have the change on a matter that is, frankly, of little or no interest to the younger generation-the nature of the voting system. It would be a bad precedent and, if it is to be justified at all, a bad starting point for the younger generation.

The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I support the amendment. I want to say two things. The thrust of my main argument is that, without doubt, 16 year-olds have a sufficient knowledge and understanding of the world to have a valid opinion on this referendum and to be able to make a valid decision about it. Moreover, a 16 year-old today has a level of sophistication significantly greater than 18 year-olds of even 20, but certainly 30, years ago. You have only to see the parliamentary youth debates on TV to witness a standard of debate unthinkable in teenagers of a previous era. If 16 year-old students and younger can demonstrate on the streets and know what they are demonstrating about, which they do, then they are certainly able to participate in this referendum.
	My second point concerns public indifference to politics, and specifically to Parliament. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. While the voting age remains at 18, it is all too easy for schools to slide out of providing a education about Parliament. However, if 16 year-olds were able to vote in this referendum then not only would the teachers become enthusiastic about a reality that took place while their pupils were still at school, but the students themselves would feel they had a real stake in their Parliament and would demand the education on voting systems and on Parliament to go with it.
	The referendum is a highly appropriate moment to test out voting at 16. It is a specific issue, though one of paramount importance, and, crucially, it is about Parliament. The voting age was correctly lowered in 1969 from 21 to 18. Now it is time to put our trust in 16 and 17 year-olds as well.

Lord Tyler: My Lords, in contrast to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, I have found that young people are very interested in the way in which we elect our Members of Parliament and feel as cheated as many other members of the electorate about the way that the system works. I was with 120 sixth-formers on behalf of the Lord Speaker's outreach programme on Friday, and I assure the noble Lord that they are extremely interested in this issue and indeed many others. I agree with the noble Earl that many of them would like to express an opinion.
	The issue today is the one addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws: what is the appropriate time to make this change? How can we do it? How soon can we do it? Can we do it before May? There are two major problems about the otherwise very persuasive case that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has put before us. The first, I am afraid, involves the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. He is my good friend in these matters; he so often provides me with ammunition. Those who might be voting in a referendum on 5 May 2011 will not just be the 16 and 17 year-olds who will become 18 before 2015-they will also include the 14 and 15 year-olds. The logic of the case that is being put from the other side is that if we are trying to identify those who will have a vote by 2015, we have to include those who are 14 and 15. That is the case that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made just a few minutes ago.

Lord Grocott: I must caution the noble Lord, if that does not sound too presumptuous, against assuming that the Bill, which has not even arrived here, to extend the parliamentary period to five years-I think that that would be about one and a quarter years longer than the average Parliament since the war, in an attempt to increase substantially the length of this coalition-is as good as an Act of Parliament. We simply cannot have this debate on the total assumption that a Bill that has not yet arrived has become law.

Lord Tyler: It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to change the whole basis on which others on his side of the House have been arguing. The case was made a few minutes ago that those who are going to vote in May 2015 will be 15 or 16 next year. They could also be 14. That is the simple point that I am making-no more than that.
	There is another practical problem. It is almost inevitable, I believe, that the referendum will take place on the same day as some other elections-others may take a different view on which other elections. It would be ridiculous to have a completely different electorate for two different purposes, with the referendum in one ballot box-

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: What an opportunity I have been given. Is the noble Lord not aware that there are already two completely different franchises for this election, as some people on this side have been arguing? How hard is he going to struggle to find ways of explaining why he is not prepared to stand up for something that he spoke about from this side of the House again and again? Is that duplicity?

Lord Tyler: No, it is not. That is an absurd point. I am simply talking about putting in place a major change in the electorate, changing the whole qualification for voting in parliamentary elections between now and 5 May. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that that is a reform that I supported and that I hope that the Government will get around to. Incidentally, her own Government, I am sad to say, did nothing to move in this direction. I hope that our Government will make progress on it before the general election in 2015 but it would be totally irrational to attempt to do it before 5 May, and that is my last word on the subject.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: Before the noble Lord sits down, the deftness of his footwork in response to my noble friend was good enough to ensure that those who are putting together the next "Strictly Come Dancing" competition should approach him. Not only did he change horses between the point that he was making, the intervention and his response to it, he moved to a different racecourse altogether. The point that he was making, as I am sure that the record of this debate will show, was that it is entirely inconsistent and confusing to have two separate electorates approaching the same polling station for both a referendum and the contemporary election. That is exactly what he was defending, time and again, from those Benches, if not from that exact spot, as we were making that very point to him.
	The amendment does not propose to fundamentally change the electorate for future elections. It proposes to change the electorate for the referendum. That is exactly what the noble Lord has been supporting up until now in relation to Peers, with a distinction between those who can vote, perhaps in local government elections, and those who are citizens of the EU or whatever and cannot vote. We will have an opportunity to address that issue. Will he address why he has now been persuaded by our argument and is now parroting it back to us? What will the consequences of that be for his future voting intentions towards the Bill in Committee?

Lord Tyler: My Lords, I am just making a simple point. I want to change the qualification for voting in parliamentary elections. If it is possible to do that between now and 5 May, and I very much doubt it, then there is of course a case for it to be part of the qualification of voting on the referendum that, as is in the Bill, you are already qualified to vote in the parliamentary election. That is my simple point. I was taking up the very proper challenge form the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that for those who want to vote in general parliamentary elections we should make this change and reduce the age to 16. I accept that. I do not believe that we can do that in practical terms before 5 May, and I was making a simple point about the confusion that could arise if we were to attempt to do it just for the referendum and not for any other purpose. That is all.

Lord Monson: The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made her argument extremely well but are she and her supporters aware that, 50-odd years ago, only two groups of people in the world could vote at the age of 18? The first comprised citizens of the Soviet Union, where you could vote at 18 provided you voted for the Communist Party. The second group consisted of white South Africans, who made up about 20 per cent of the population of that country. In most other parts of the world the voting age was 21 but there were at least four exceptions. These four exceptions were countries that are generally regarded by progressive opinion as highly praiseworthy, with superb welfare states and high standards of literacy, healthcare, education and so on. They were the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, where the minimum voting ages ranged from 23 to 25. That is not a preclusive argument against lowering the voting age but it is certainly something to reflect on.

Baroness Kingsmill: I support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Hayter. My reason for this is that 16 year-olds today are a very mature bunch of people. They have been well educated, on the whole, and many of them have studied current affairs to a far greater degree than I did when I was at school. We encourage our 16 year-olds to take responsibility; we wish them to behave well and to pursue active citizenship. I can think of no better way of doing so than exercising the vote responsibly. It is patronising in the extreme to think that 16 year-olds are not interested in how our Government are run. Most 16 year-olds I know are extremely interested in this area, as were most of my children's friends when they were 16. Some of the frustrations that we see on the streets today may well have arisen from the fact that people have not had the opportunity to be active citizens or to exercise the vote. This is, therefore, a wholly worthy amendment and one that I support.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: In opening the debate on active citizenship from these Benches two weeks ago, I made clear my view that votes at 16 would be timely. I do not resile from that one little bit. I served in the mid-1960s on the Latey committee on the age of majority, which reduced the age of majority for certain civil purposes to 18. A year later I also served on the Speaker's Conference on electoral law, which recommended that the age of voting should be not 18 but 20. None the less, Parliament rejected that advice and the following year voted for votes at 18. So, I have a track record of involvement in this debate.
	However, it appears that what we are talking about in this amendment is not giving people votes at 16 but giving them the right to participate in a one-off referendum. That raises somewhat different issues. It is also clear that, throughout the debate in Committee, there has been lengthy opposition to and debates on amendments, which-if the process goes on in this manner-will have the effect, whether it is desired or not, of postponing the referendum. As many people as possible should take part in the referendum, so that we have a clear indication of what the public view is. Whatever side of the argument we may be on, to have the maximum turnout for the referendum is highly desirable. If we are to achieve that maximum turnout, it makes sense to hold the referendum on a day when people are turning out for other polls. That is why I favour the proposal of the coalition Government to hold the referendum on the day of the Scottish election and the local elections, when roughly 85 per cent of the electorate will at least be able to turn out. That seems a very strong argument for not holding up this process. Consequently, we should view somewhat askance an amendment that could result in denying people that opportunity, or at least the likelihood of there being a substantial turnout.
	The second issue that causes me to hesitate about having 16 year-olds voting in the late spring-as is implicit in the Government's attitude-is that it seems improbable that many of them would be on the register in time for that. Even if the decision were taken by this House to change the provisions and allow them to vote, it would have to go back for approval to another place. Consequently, we could expect substantial delays. Practically, their being on the register-which they would need to be if their votes were to be validated-is very improbable.

Lord Rooker: There is an easy solution to that. I think it is the case-I do not have children but I was at the DSS-that when you are 16 you are issued with your national insurance number. You are known about on the system. It would be easy for the DWP to know where all 16 year-olds are because it would be about to issue their national insurance numbers. That argument, with respect, is not a valid one.
	Could the noble Lord also address the London issue? He skated over that when talking about the second election. The greatest density of voters in this country is in the 100-odd constituencies in London-the capital of the country, where there is no other election next May. The damage to possible turnout because there is not another election could be catastrophic. The 15 per cent who will not be voting are not evenly spread over the country. Has the noble Lord thought about that?

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I take the noble Member's point. However, the concentration of the media-the London-centred media-makes it highly likely that London is the least likely part of the country to be unaware of what is happening, or not to have been stimulated by the press, including television and radio, into recognising the importance of the issue. I envisage that being the proper possibility in other parts of the country, where other elections are happening. It is conceivable in Scotland, for example, that the voting system for Westminster will not be regarded as the first priority; rather, the structure of the Scottish Parliament and which Government will take their place in Scotland will. So, I do not altogether go along with the noble Lord.
	The suggestion that national insurance numbers could be used would be unlikely to lead to an outcome that carried much conviction.

Lord Rooker: Forgive me but that was not my point. The noble Lord was saying that we could not get 16 year-olds on to the register in time. The fact is that they are on a register now. It would be very easy to transfer them to the electoral register. It is known in government, electronically, where they are because they are about to be issued with an NI number. I am not suggesting that the NI number is used for voting but it would be very easy to put them on to the electoral register.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I would be interested to hear the views of the Electoral Commission on that. I do not regard myself as an expert on these matters but I doubt it is quite as easy as that, given that the timing for the Bill becoming law is decreasingly clear.
	My final point may not carry so much weight but I believe that our 16 year-olds are increasingly very interested in politics, which is why I want to see a change in the voting age. However, I do not believe that in a few months' time they are likely to be able to discriminate between different electoral systems when they have not been thinking about voting. It is highly improbable that even their teachers would be in a position to give them guidance on the virtues and merits of different electoral systems. We have heard arguments being put forward on the Benches opposite and conflicts between the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and others about the merits of the supplementary vote as opposed to the alternative vote, or various kinds of alternative vote. Without prior discussion or only the most minimal educational input on this issue, it is extremely improbable that 16 year-olds would add greatly to the authority of the decision to be taken next May, if that is the date decided upon. Therefore, for the three reasons that I have given, I would prefer to see the system of voting change and for subsequent referenda to follow the electoral register.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: I would like to ask the noble Lord a very simple question. Can he tell your Lordships' House which members of the public he thinks have been thinking about these issues with the necessary intensity to make the decision he has just proposed needs to be made?

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: A large number of people who have voted in previous elections feel that their vote did not count and that the relevant constituency remained dominated, come hell or high water, by the party which had been there for over a generation. I am bound to say that those people are likely to look at alternatives with a passion and concern not shared by a new voter, who may simply be mystified by what could appear to be a very academic debate. Consequently, I do not think that the noble Lord's intervention has much substance.

Lord Desai: My Lords, it never fails to surprise me that when people want to resist an advance in the franchise all the same objections are made. They say, "These people do not know how to vote. They are not interested in politics; they are just not good enough". That happened in 1832 and it has been happening steadily ever since, every time a reform is suggested, especially when people believe sincerely in the reform but do not want to implement it, as is the case with noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. They say, "Ah, but there are administrative difficulties. We are entirely for it in principle, but it is so difficult to transfer a number from one computer to another that we cannot do this". It is almost a universal law that every time any advance in the franchise is proposed, the establishment is against it on the ground that people who are about to get the franchise are too ignorant and too stupid to deserve it.
	In proposing this amendment, my noble friend has done a very nice thing. Given that we are talking about a referendum, we are not so worried about which constituency people are registered to on the electoral register. The constituency does not matter; this is a nationwide election. Therefore, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said in his imaginative intervention, once you have your national insurance number, people know that you are 16 and then you are eligible to vote. One could even experiment with e-voting given that we are not electing Members to represent constituencies but asking the nation a question: "Are you for AV, or not?". We should not be so conceited as to presume that students, or their teachers, do not understand the issues surrounding AV. They can all read and write and people have been reading about this stuff for ages.
	I remember that in the 1960s the only party which publicly supported voting at 18 was the Monster Raving Loony Party, and it was far ahead of the electorate in that respect. These really radical reforms always come from the outside, as it were. For some strange reason the Government want to hold the referendum on 5 May 2011; perhaps it should be held in 2012, but they want it on 5 May. However, they should not let that one little thing be an obstacle to achieving a good reform. If we can achieve this reform, it will make a tremendous difference. As regards the point about today's 14 year-olds being eligible to vote by 2015, that is a great idea. We could easily amend the noble Baroness's amendment to say that anybody who is likely to be 18 by 2015 should be eligible to vote in the referendum.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, this amendment concerns the age at which one should be eligible to vote in the referendum. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, convincingly to separate out the arguments for allowing people to vote at 16 on the referendum and lowering the voting age for other elections. Indeed, in the speech in which she so ably moved this amendment, my noble friend Lady Hayter engaged with those wider considerations, as did my noble friends Lord Soley and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.
	My observation of young people's views on what the voting age should be is a little at odds with the experience of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. Like many Members of Parliament, I used regularly to have meetings with sixth formers in my two former constituencies. They were very different constituencies situated in different parts of the country with very different socioeconomic make-ups. I expected my youthful constituents to be enthusiastic about lowering the voting age but I found that that was not commonly the case. I used to go to their schools to talk to them about the role of a Member of Parliament, the way Parliament works and broader constitutional issues, and very often the question of whether the voting age should be lowered came up. While my young constituents were well informed, sophisticated in their interest and in no sense apathetic about politics, Parliament and their future role as citizens, I was struck that commonly they did not think it was appropriate to lower the voting age. Many points of view and a range of arguments were put forward, but commonly they felt that it was not right to lower the voting age and that they were not ready for that. You can take a horse to water but you cannot necessarily make it drink.
	We have noted at a series of elections that the lowest turnouts are among those entitled to vote for the first time, which worries us all. That should not necessarily be interpreted as disaffection from politics, but it is a matter of concern that those in the youngest age group eligible to vote are not conspicuously prone to exercise that right. If we lowered the voting age, I worry that that trend might intensify and become extended. Therefore, there is a case for caution. I would be interested to know whether my noble friend Lady Hayter thinks that my observation is correct and that there is not a great demand among young people for the right to vote at a younger age than 18, whether on a referendum or in other elections.

Lord Newton of Braintree: My Lords, since there has so far been silence from these Benches, I want to offer my noble friend on the Front Bench a modest bit of encouragement before he replies. I might frighten him by saying that I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in that I did not get my first vote until I was 22. I am not going to tell noble Lords how I cast it, except to say that it was consistent with my being a supporter of the coalition. I am more or less agnostic on whether the voting age should be reduced further, although I am bound to say that the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Howarth, have made some powerful points on the sceptical side.
	The key point I want to make to my noble friend is that, whatever my view might turn out to be were we to have a properly considered and consulted-on proposal brought before us, I do not think that an amendment in your Lordships' House to this Bill at this time would not be an appropriate way to bring about a reduction in the voting age. So if my noble friend wishes to resist the amendment, whether in the terms forecast by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, or in any other, he will have my support.

Baroness McDonagh: I see the issue in a rather different way. It is part and parcel of our long march to democracy. I take as a starting point the situation 537 years ago, with the enfranchisement of some men on a property basis. We talk of the Great Reform Act 1832, where we enfranchised only some 14 per cent of men. The great reforming Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, represented a rotten borough that was bought for him on his birthday at the age of 21. It was only in 1918 that we allowed all men over 21 to vote, due to our embarrassment from the First World War, when people fought and died but were not allowed to vote.
	The first voices on the enfranchisement of women were heard in the mid-1800s. Disraeli wrote the novel Sybil and began to talk about votes for women. It was not until 1885 that the women's suffragette movement started. However, it was not until 1928 that all women were able to vote on the same basis as men. I suppose that my sisters in this House have to think ourselves lucky that we were not French, because it was not until 1945 that women in France could vote.
	We set ourselves up as a paragon of democracy that the rest of the world can look to. When we look back, we have actually taken quite a long time to come here. It was only in the last century that we started to look at age. It was only some 40 years ago, in 1969, that all 18 year-olds were allowed to vote. I look around the Chamber and I do not wish to be disparaging to anyone, but that happened probably within all our lifetimes.
	Various noble Lords have talked about why 16 year- olds should be brought into the franchise because they can, for example, leave school, work full-time, pay tax, serve in the Armed Forces, and so on. However, we are at a unique point in our history dealing with serious issues that affect only this age group, including, for example, tuition fees. This issue is a huge departure and is not about a contribution to student fees, which were brought in by the previous Labour Government, but is about a Government who are wholly standing back from contributing to teaching in universities. We are in a wholly different situation which relates to an issue that will be faced uniquely by this age group. That has never happened before.
	Look at today's announcement on the education maintenance allowance. We hear a lot from the Government about how everything they do is progressive. Even though outside bodies always fail to agree, the Government say they want to be fair and to help those who find it hardest. Getting rid of the education maintenance allowance will hit the poorest members of our society. Issues such as these are unique to that age group. We have a choice as to whether we bring people into democracy and let them have a say about the big issues of the day.
	The Electoral Commission has carried out much research in this area. It shows how 15 to 17 year-olds are much more interested and likely to vote than their older contemporaries. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, said he was 22 before he voted. If the voting age remains at 18, someone's first vote is likely to be cast when they are between the ages of 18 and 24, rather than near their 18th birthday, depending on when there is an election. It looks like members of that age group are more likely to vote. I personally feel-and research bears this out-that if you vote in your first election when you are young, you gain a habit of voting and vote throughout your life. I think that the whole House would want to join me in agreeing with that.
	Another social impact is that when young people are 18, they are now much more likely to move away from home to university than they were 20, 30 or 40 years ago. They are not given the same parental guidance that perhaps we were at that age when we were taken to the polling station to vote. Something struck me for the first time on polling day in the 1997 general election-and I have been active in politics since 1978. It came home to me that that was the first election, after the previous four general elections, when more than 50 per cent of first-time voters voted. I was very pleased to be out of Millbank Tower for the first day in many months. When I was knocking on doors and talking to young voters in the streets, I discovered that it was not older people who needed help getting to polling stations, but first-time voters, who asked, "Where do I go? How do I vote?". I was struck by the number of people who were not sure of the practicalities, whether they had to pass a test, or whether they should vote electronically. A younger person will be given more parental guidance and be told that voting is a right of passage as they grow older.
	For those reasons, allowing 16 to 18 year-olds to vote for the first time in this referendum will be a positive good.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I have been persuaded to make only two brief points, encouraged by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I am always slightly nervous about suggesting that I am an agnostic on a subject, but as he has given me courage, I shall begin by saying that my instinct on this is one of agnosticism. I am not sure whether I have been helped or hindered by listening to the debate and hearing what I thought were two weak arguments-one on each side of the debate.
	For those who favour votes at 16, I found the argument that there was an intense interest in different forms of electoral systems among 16 and 17 year-olds very unconvincing. I acknowledge that there is tremendous interest in issues such as those to which my noble friend referred-student fees and the like, and, over the years, in bigger issues such as war and peace-but, please, not in different electoral systems. If such interest exists, it is in a parallel universe to the one that I have inhabited. I have found hardly any adults who are interested in different electoral systems, let alone people aged 16 and 17. I used to think that I understood electoral systems but, having listened to nearly all of the debates so far in the Committee stage of the Bill, I have become more confused as the debates have gone on. I did not realise that there were three types of alternative vote systems and I certainly could not answer in two sentences how the d'Hondt system operates. I find it an unconvincing argument that there is a clamour for votes at 16 and 17 on electoral systems.
	However, I find it equally unconvincing to challenge the right of people to vote at 16 and 17 on the basis that they are not yet well enough informed. I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Desai that it is a dangerous path to tread to say that there should be a test of someone's knowledge, ability and awareness before giving them the right to vote; it should be a universal right. We all acknowledge that there has to be a dividing line somewhere on the grounds of age-at least I assume we all acknowledge that-but excluding someone simply on the ground that they do not understand the issues is a weak argument. I have been frank with the House and explained that I do not fully understand the d'Hondt system and yet and I shall be voting with enthusiasm when the referendum takes place. So, faced with two weak arguments, one on each side of the debate, what does an agnostic do?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the effect of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Hayter would be that the voting age for the referendum would be lowered to 16. Two bases are put forward to support the amendment: first, that those who vote at between 16 and 18 in the referendum will be voting on the voting system that they will be using in a general election and therefore they should be allowed to contribute to choosing it; and, secondly and separately, that 16 is the right age for people to be able to vote in a general election and therefore they should be able to vote in the referendum. I do not regard the first basis as a strong argument. If we as a nation conclude that 18 is the right age to vote in a general election, 18 is also the right age to participate in the referendum.
	In those circumstances, two issues are raised by the amendment: first, should the voting age be 18, which should be addressed as a matter of principle; and, secondly, if the House were to conclude that 18 is the right voting age, are there practical reasons why people should not be entitled to vote in the referendum because, for example, it is too late, too complicated or too confusing?
	Let me address those two critical issues. First, should the voting age be 18 or 16? The Labour Party position is that there should be a free vote in relation to this. In my view-this is a personal view; I am not expressing the view of the Labour Party-the voting age should be 16 for the following four reasons. First, we allow people of 16 to do things that are only consistent with being an adult-joining the Army, marriage, paying taxes. In those circumstances it is quite difficult to see a basis on which not to allow them to vote. A possible basis could be that we think 16 year-olds are not mature enough to vote whereas 18 year-olds are. However, I do not think there is much evidence in relation to that. Secondly, as a matter of history, we have always taken a time to recognise that younger people than previously are capable of doing things. My noble friend Lady McDonagh made the point that in 1918, when we allowed women the vote for the first time, we said that they had to be 30 before they could vote. That was not a view about how mature or otherwise women were; it was society's attitude to people. I suggest that the position now-just as it was in 1969, when Parliament rejected the view of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, who is no longer in his place, that the age should be 20-is that society is much more trusting of people than it was before.
	I think that 16 is an age at which people can vote. I speak as an expert in that I have a 17 year-old son and a 20 year-old daughter, one of whom is completely uninterested in politics and the other of whom is very interested. I do not put this forward on the ground that there is a clamour from 16 year-olds-I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and I have always been rather despondent about the lack of clamour and interest in politics-but that is not the issue: a judgment about maturity can be made by each Member of the House individually. One hears people say all the time, "Of course they are mature enough" or, "Of course they are not mature enough". I was struck-and this is my third point-by what my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws said. She had done some work on the Power commission and received evidence that people between 16 and 18 and their teachers were in favour of it.
	My fourth point is that this matter was debated in the other place; there was a vote and 200 Members of Parliament voted in favour of reducing the age from 18 to 16. So I, like the Liberal Democrat Party, am in favour of reducing the voting age from 18 to 16. I suspect it will happen at some stage and we should grasp the nettle as soon as possible.
	On the second issue-are their practical reasons which indicate that it should not be done at the referendum stage?-three points have been raised. First, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said that there would be confusion. There is scope for confusion in relation to this but the people who are likely to be as little confused as anyone are those between 16 and 18 who know that all that he or she can do is vote in the referendum. So I find the confusion argument unpersuasive.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, asked how you will get 16 year-olds on the register by 5 May 2010. That point needs an answer. I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said in relation to that. He believes that it could be easily done because the Department for Work and Pensions has a list of all 16 year-olds because it is sending out national insurance numbers to them. I do not know whether that is the answer and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says in relation to that.
	Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, delivered a magisterial statement along the lines of, "Don't be ridiculous. Don't put it into this Bill". In my view, if the practical difficulties can be overcome-I shall listen to what the Minister says in relation to this-then, because I favour votes at 16, as do the Liberal Democrats, I will support the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. However, I make it clear that I do that in a personal capacity, not on behalf of my party which has indicated that there should be a free vote in relation to it.
	Let me make one final point. I regard this as a wholly appropriate issue to be debated in relation to the Bill. I find the suggestion that there is something wrong about debating this issue both offensive and wrong. I regard the debate that has taken place as good and worthwhile; I do not regard it as a worthless debate because no Tories took part, except for the noble Lord, Lord Newton. This is the kind of thing we should debate in relation to a Bill whose self-stated purpose is to reform the way in which we elect MPs.

Lord McNally: My Lords, as ever it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, not least because his speeches never fail to give the feel of how he tries to persuade the House. To give an example, he said in his summing up that 200 Members of Parliament voted in favour of votes at 16. That is an impressive statistic, but actually 196 voted in favour, on 18 October, while 346 voted against. Occasionally, in his wonderful summings up, the noble and learned Lord leaves out the odd fact that the House might like to have and I think that knowing that 346 Members voted against might help this side of the House.
	I do not object to the debate, as I found it absolutely fascinating. The span of it, on the Benches opposite, illustrated why the amendment should not be pressed. The noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Howarth, were against, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Soley, were for, while the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was agnostic. That is the kind of spread and I can see why the Labour Party wants a free vote. It is a very interesting issue to debate.

Lord Desai: In being so divided, we are just like the Liberal Democrats.

Lord McNally: These shafts of wit will throw me one of these days. In the mean time, I address the problem with this proposal. I am surrounded by parliamentarians of great expertise, who know that there are two kinds of Bill. There are the Christmas trees, which people hang things on-I have hung many a thing on a Christmas tree Bill and had great pleasure doing so-but then there are the clear, simple Bills, whose beauty and simplicity are their major strengths. As has been said on this side of the House since this debate began-it seems like years ago, but apparently it was only four parliamentary days ago, as we gallop into Clause 2-this Bill is about fair votes on fair boundaries. All the other things are interesting and will undoubtedly continue to be debated as this Government carry forward their constitutional reform agenda.
	The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is constantly asking to see the big picture. Tomorrow I am speaking to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Legal and Constitutional Affairs, when I will give the constitutional big picture, or big vision, from this Government. I hope that the noble Lord will come along. In the mean time, what we are trying to do is to keep this Bill clear and simple in its objectives.

Lord Soley: I invite the noble Lord to remember his Christmas tree. There are only two things hanging on it-one is the Liberal Party and the other is the Conservative Party. It would be better if he just admitted it and then we would all know where we were coming from.

Lord McNally: That Christmas tree lifts the spirits and lights these gloomy days.
	The amendment seeks to amend Clause 2 to enable 16 and 17 year-olds to participate in the referendum. As I have said before, the amendment is similar in intent to one tabled in the Commons, which was lost by 196 votes to 346. Then as now, the Government's position on the franchise and in all other aspects relating to how the referendum is run is that we should follow the arrangements for parliamentary elections unless a particular circumstance is presented by the referendum that would require us to adapt a different approach. There is no requirement here to depart from the standard approach to the voting age of 18 that applies in those elections. The Government have no current plans to lower the voting age. I recognise that there are different views on whether the voting age in this country should be lowered to 16, but if we are to have a debate about reducing the voting age it needs to be had in relation to elections more generally. The passage of this Bill is not the right platform on which to discuss that issue.
	There is a wider debate to be had about the voting age more generally and we need to consider the arguments for and against. I recommend that, when there is a Bill to bring the voting age down to 16, tonight's Hansard should be required reading for anybody persuaded in that Bill. My noble friend Lord Newton, to whom I can almost say "Welcome home", is right-this Bill is not the right forum for that debate. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: If this is not the right Bill, could the Minister deal with the practical issues to which I referred, as that would influence me in relation to whether it was the right Bill? He has not dealt with any of the arguments; he has just said, "Wrong place, close it down". But it would be of interest to the House to hear the practical objections to putting this measure in.

Lord McNally: On the practical objections, I could almost refer to the opening three or four lines of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soley, when he summed up my arguments perfectly. We are determined that this Bill will not be a Christmas tree. It is a simple Bill in its objectives of fair votes on fair boundaries. That is what we are aiming to achieve.
	One interesting thing was that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, raised the issue of using the national insurance database to register all 16 year-olds. Almost as an example of how this Government are thinking about the broader issues involved, we are running data-matching pilots next year and we will be looking at how we can use the wider government database to get more people on the register. As the Minister responsible for data protection, I would like to see some of the implications of that. That is why some of these things cannot be rushed.

Baroness McDonagh: I thank the Minister for giving way. I wanted to give one point of information. To date, all voters in the UK are registered from the point when they are 16 years and three months. Would the Minister agree that that is why it is important to retain household registration and not move to individual registration? As I am on my feet, I shall ask a second question. Given that the noble Lord thinks that it is not right for this Bill to reduce the voting age to 16, does he have any intention to bring forward another Bill?

Lord McNally: As Lord Peart used to say, "Not next week". I am not looking forward as far as that. On the question of the 16 year-olds, according to this amendment we would also need to identify all those who are now 15 but who will be 16 on 5 May. Registration officers have no power to do that and it would be a real practical burden to do it in such a short timescale. I could not quite work out whether the noble Baroness was backing off individual registration. This Government are certainly not doing that.

Lord Soley: The noble Lord misquoted me. I certainly did not say that this was the wrong sort of Bill for the proposal; I said that he would say that the Electoral Commission would have difficulties with it. I would like to know-as, I suspect, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer would like to know-whether that is true or not. Secondly, I said that it would be difficult to deliver this proposal in such a way that the votes could be put into effect. Those were the two things that I said and that was what my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer was asking about.

Lord McNally: It would be difficult. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, indicated, the implications of the amendment go far beyond normal electoral registration and far beyond what it would be proper to debate in a House of Lords amendment. My noble friend Lord Newton wisely guided me on that. I will keep bobbing up and down as long as other noble Lords do, but I emphasise our determination to keep the Bill simple and clean. I feel a tingle between my shoulder blades and will sit down.

Lord Campbell-Savours: The noble Lord referred a few minutes ago to data protection issues arising over the transfer of information from departments for the purposes of registration. Is he suggesting that the Department for Work and Pensions has reservations about the transfer? The issue was raised during the passage of the Bill when the matter of electoral registration was discussed. Is there a problem looming with data transfer?

Lord McNally: As I said, the issues are not simple, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who served in that department, knows. We are running pilot projects; there is no great mystery.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: My Lords, I thank noble Lords, including the noble Earl, for their support for this amendment. As a new Member, I was amused by the description of this as a simple Bill-I am dreading the next ones-and by the idea of a Christmas tree. My noble friend Lord Soley said that there were two things on the Christmas tree. I now picture the Minister as the fairy on top. The image will remain with me.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, is not in his place, but I think that at one point he suggested that this was an attempt to delay the referendum. It is absolutely not that. I am particularly interested in a high turnout for the referendum and in catching the interest of our young people. The more that they are involved in the arguments, the higher the turnout will be. I have tabled another amendment to set a threshold. I hope that those noble Lords who also want a high turnout will support it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, said that he had already voted for two parties. If in the local elections he would like to go for a third, I can suggest one that would be very attractive. He said that this was not the right vehicle. I had not thought about that argument, but my noble friend Lord Soley was right: the Bill is about reform of the parliamentary voting system and there is almost nothing more important than who has the vote in that system. Whether the voting age should be 16 is a key issue, even for those whom I may not have persuaded. I was asked whether there was a demand for this. I cite the Youth Parliament and the research of the Power inquiry, which suggest that there is. I was horrified by my noble friend Lady McDonagh saying that it was 40 years since the voting age was lowered to 18. I would have guessed that it was about 20; that says something about one's age. It is time to look at this issue again.
	Basically, those of us who put our names to the amendment won the argument. There is general support for voting at 16. The objections that were thrown up were practical ones rather than issues of principle. The practical objections could be overcome if there was a desire to do so. As my noble friend Lord Desai said, this is not a constituency-based vote but a national one-although I may challenge that in future. The real issue is that nearly everyone supports the idea of voting at 16. I would hate to embarrass my former friends on this side, the Liberal Democrats, by forcing a vote, because it would be difficult for them to vote against what I know they believe in. Therefore, I will not test the opinion of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 36 withdrawn.
	House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.36 pm.

Population Growth
	 — 
	Question for Short Debate

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the implications for the United Kingdom of future world population growth.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am pleased to have the chance to raise this important topic. I do so with some trepidation, because it is an issue on which one can be misconstrued, misreported, misquoted and misunderstood. To avoid this, I will begin by saying what the debate is not about. This is not a debate about immigration under another name; it is not a debate about relative population sizes, and whether there are more white people or black people; it is not about the relative sizes of faiths, and whether there are more Christians, Jews or Muslims; it is not about the relative sizes of social classes, and whether there are more rich people or poor people; and finally, it is not about preaching or personal example, because I will put on the record straight away that I have four children. It is about the staggering absolute increase in world and UK population-hour by hour, week by week and year by year-and what this may mean for us, for our children and for our grandchildren. It is the elephant in the room of all our efforts, first, to relieve abject poverty; secondly, to offer people a decent standard of living; thirdly, to provide everybody with a reasonable chance of self-realisation and of fulfilling their talents, dreams and aspirations; and, finally, to avoid a possible final degradation of our world.
	What is the size of the problem? The growth in world population peaked at 2.2 per cent in 1962-63. It is now between 1.1 and 1.2 per cent. That may seem a small number, but in absolute terms it meant that in 2009 the world's population increased by 74.6 million. This equates to an increase of 204,000 people per day. In the short hour of this debate, the world population will go up by 8,500. Is this not a declining figure? It is-a bit. Projections suggest that by 2050, the annual increase will have slowed to about 40 million-that is, 4,500 people per hour. I invite noble Lords to consider what even that reduced figure will mean for the need for housing, health, education, employment, resource use and the CO2 footprint. Because of this annual increase-whether it be 74.6 million or 40 million-the world's population will have increased in 2050 from 6.8 billion today to 9.2 billion then. That is a staggering increase of 35 per cent, or 2.4 billion people.
	Some may be inclined to dismiss this as somebody else's problem-other countries, other continents. However, not only would that be short-sighted, as I shall show in a minute, it would also not be true, for we in the United Kingdom also have a microcosm of the world's population issue. In 1840, the population of the United Kingdom was about 10 million. In 2009, it was 62 million and is increasing by just under 400,000 a year-that is 45 per hour, or 45 during this debate.
	Some may say that this is an immigration problem. Again, this would be short-sighted and, again, it would not be completely true. In 2008-09, of the 393,000 increase in the UK's population, 217,000, or 55 per cent, came from a surplus of births over deaths. Immigration accounted for only 45 per cent, or 176,000. What makes this figure particularly alarming is that the figures for 10 years ago-2001-02-show that the net excess of births over deaths then was only 62,000 compared with 217,000 today, so there is a real non-immigration issue for the UK and its population.
	But, people will argue, the real problem is overseas-particularly in Africa-and that is true. Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Sudan all have fast-growing populations. The argument goes: should we be concerned about the growth of population in these overseas countries? Some may say that there is a case for a moral duty-for us to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves-and I personally regard this as a powerful argument.
	However, even for those who adopt a more laissez-faire, sauve qui peut approach, there are compelling arguments to be concerned. Impoverished people are desperate people, and desperate people do desperate things-for themselves and for their families. I am a member of the House of Lords EU Sub-Committee F, which is concerned with home affairs. Last year, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Jopling, we looked at the operation of FRONTEX, the European border agency. The evidence that we received about the lengths to which people will go to reach Europe was truly alarming. Time does not permit me to go into detail but one example will suffice. It is clear that boatloads of refugees are prepared, once they reach the territorial waters of a European country, to sink their boat and risk drowning as a means of ensuring that they reach Europe and are not returned to their country of origin. As population rises, so will the number of people trying these desperate remedies.
	Finally, there are those who argue that we need more young people to fund the pension provision and lifestyle of a population with a higher proportion of older people-a sort of gigantic Ponzi population scheme. Such people forget about the inexorable implications of compound growth. It has been calculated that such an approach will require the population of the United Kingdom to reach between 125 million and 150 million by the end of the century.
	In recent years, there has developed the concept of "carrying capacity". Carrying capacity, at its most basic, is about survival-how much food and water the population of the world needs to survive. One estimate is that in 1999 humanity's demand exceeded the planet's biocapacity to supply by more than 20 per cent. This excess is not immediately disastrous because biocapacity stocks can be run down or liquidated by things such as overfishing and deforestation, and indeed by filling up sinks-over-emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. Further, nation by nation there can also be imbalances with countries exceeding the average carrying capacity, balanced by others which do not. However, for the world as a whole there is no such easy outcome, because we have as yet no possibility of interplanetary trade.
	So much for the problems; what would I like the Government to do? First, I should like them to agree that population growth is an issue both abroad and at home, and that the taboo on even discussing this issue needs to be ended. We need, as someone has said, to "detoxify the brand", for the people of this country are entitled to know about the seriousness of this challenge and its implications for them. Secondly, I should like the Government to disavow the idea that we need population growth to support our society. That way madness lies. Thirdly, we need to redouble our efforts to give women all over the world the power to control their fertility. That is why I believe that ring-fencing the foreign aid budget was such an important policy decision and likely to help to bring incalculable benefits at every level.
	None of this will be easy. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this is a complicated, uncertain, messy issue hedged about with traps. Those of us who cut our political teeth in the 1970s remember the example of Keith Joseph, whose political career was effectively ended by a speech on this subject. As Matthew Parris put it in a recent article:
	"Joseph's intentions, if not his words, were right. All the world over, a new generation of political leaders must return to this. Look beyond insulating your roof. Look beyond recycling your tins. Look beyond buying a charity goat for a Kenyan village for Christmas. It's population, stupid".

Lord Rea: My Lords, I think that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for raising this Question and for his thoughtful and thought-provoking speech. The fact that 11 speakers have put their names down for this one-hour slot gives an indication of the importance of the issue.
	I am going to talk mainly about population and economic migration but, on the way, I should like to flag up briefly the way in which rapid population growth will affect not only this country but the rest of the world through its impact on the environment by accelerating resource depletion and climate change. We are already faced with a time bomb since, although the output of greenhouse gases per head in the developing world is low at present-about 1/20th of ours per head -this will inevitably increase with rising standards of living. China is already providing us with an example.
	I should declare an interest in that I am a longstanding member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health. In January 2007, we published a report, Return of the Population Growth Factor, Its Impact upon the Millennium Development Goals. This was a distillation of a series of parliamentary hearings of experts in the fields of population and demography. Its conclusions, in brief, were that each of the first seven MDGs was adversely affected by population growth when it exceeded the rate of economic development. This applied particularly to sub-Saharan Africa, where population growth rates are the highest in the world and economic development the slowest. With regard to MDG 1, which is to,
	"eradicate extreme poverty and hunger",
	the report says on page 21 under the heading "Running to stand still":
	"In sub-Saharan Africa, GDP per capita has been falling at nearly one percent a year, and those living in poverty ... rose modestly from 44.6% to 46.4% between 1990 and 2001".
	Annual economic growth is expected to be 1.6 per cent between 2006 and 2015 but,
	"due to the countervailing effect of rapid population growth, the World Bank predicts that by 2015, 340 million people in Africa will be living in extreme poverty, compared with 318 million in 2001"-
	an increase of 22 million. The pressure to seek a better life in another country comes not so much from overcrowding and population growth per se but from lack of employment and poverty-in other words, "the economy, stupid". Initially, employment is sought in the rapidly increasing slum cities of the developing world, but when this is not forthcoming the most enterprising citizens seek it elsewhere-perhaps in the El Dorado of the prosperous north and west. As the noble Lord said, the populations of some of those countries are in decline with a shortage of young people, so inward migration may not always be a bad thing.
	Of course, there are reasons other than poverty for migration-conflict and political persecution are two. In the past, this country has benefited greatly from migrants from Europe fleeing political persecution. The largest number of immigrants, as the noble Lord pointed out, are seeking their way out of poverty.
	There are two approaches to the problem, which are equally important. We must make more efforts to boost the economies of the developing world and diminish poverty. This in itself will result in fertility rates coming down. We all accept that that is a gargantuan task and inevitably slow. In the mean time, much can be done to assist mothers to have fewer children. The two most important are to aim to boost female education and to ensure that contraceptive supplies are made available to the 220 million women who wish to use them but at present cannot obtain them. There is no time to develop these themes. Suffice it to say that DfID is well aware of the needs of the developing world in reproductive health and family planning-not least because our group makes sure that they are aware. DfID devotes a greater proportion of its budget to it than most other countries. I am sure that the noble Baroness in her answer will take the opportunity to describe DfID's work in this field.

Baroness Northover: I remind noble Lords that this is a tight time-limited debate, and when you hit four minutes you have already exceeded your time.

Lord Chidgey: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for securing the debate this evening on what is truly a world development issue.
	Rapidly growing populations in unstable states or regions represent increased possibilities for volatility, civilian unrest and even full-blown conflict. Our Prime Minister stated that,
	"we are mad if we do not put money into mending broken states".-[Official Report, Commons. 19/10/10; col. 516.]
	Instability costs the country money, especially when it occurs in areas where there is already significant UK engagement or interest, such as in the Great Lakes region of Africa. Timely implementation of preventive measures is important so that a combination of rapid population growth and unstable environments do not result in unrest or conflict, undoing the progress made to date by the UK's aid investments and, in the long run, costing our country more.
	A number of academics argue that when populations increase, some societies overuse resources, leading to environmental degradation and social collapse. Jared Diamond and others have made this case about the 1994 Rwandan genocide, which resulted in the deaths of more than 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus. The Great Lakes region is extremely resource-rich, with vast copper, oil and diamond reserves as well as water and, crucially, land. However, some of the region's countries-most notably Rwanda and Burundi-have extremely fast-growing populations for what are themselves very small countries. The land resources in each of these are becoming increasingly scarce. As pressure over resources increases in Rwanda, it is important for donors to look towards equitable economic growth in what is already a fragile and conflict-burdened region. Our Secretary of State for DfID has repeatedly affirmed his belief that wealth creation, jobs and livelihoods above all will help poor people to lift themselves out of poverty.
	Tangible poverty reduction at grass-roots level will help strengthen social cohesion and internal stability in Rwanda. There is evident and laudable growth in Rwanda today, and the Government have ambitious plans for Rwanda to become a middle-income country. Due to high levels of domestic political commitment and with international support, Rwanda has made progress towards the millennium development goals, particularly in health and primary education. However,growing inequality risks undermining efforts towards poverty reduction and human development. The majority of Rwandans continue to live in poverty, especially in the rural areas where people struggle to make a living from agriculture. The United Kingdom should promote more by increasing pro-poor investment in agriculture and other rural sectors. This should include policies to promote the growth of micro-enterprises and the pursuit of economic growth strategies beyond the capital, Kigali. More donor funding is needed for civil society budget transparency work and participatory government policy-making and planning.
	Another case study is in Burundi, which in 2007 had a population of some 8 million. In the four years from 2004 to 2008 the population increased from 7.4 million to 8.2 million-a 10.8 per cent increase. The economy in Burundi witnessed a contraction in growth in 2009, from 4.3 per cent in 2008 to 3.3 per cent. These are the pressures that exist in these countries.
	However, there are some very good examples of grass-roots interventions which have given local people access to the means of production and, therefore, to economic self-sustainability. For example, in 2005 Burundi identified mass deforestation as a problem created by the local Burundian population and as a primary cause of a change in the microclimate. They themselves introduced a planting programme of well over 5 million trees which not only had to be effective in addressing the original problem but had to provide food security and create work. So it is not all bad news. Things can be done.

Baroness Flather: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this subject, so I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for introducing it. I think that we can no longer call this a toxic subject. I have always been involved in the issues of population and family planning, because I come from India, where you cannot avoid worrying about population increase. Until even 10 years ago, population was not a subject that people talked about as we are doing today. Even three or four years ago we were not quite so open about the issue. It is one of the most important issues that we have not tackled or considered and, as has been said, we really do need to think about it.
	I should just like to say a few words about the history of Britain's contribution to family planning. DfID has had some very strange Secretaries of State. Clare Short, for example, dropped family planning completely when she was Secretary of State. Hilary Benn took it up again, and since then DfID has been in a very good phase. It has given £20 million per year under a five-year grant to the UNFPA. Bilateral aid has also increased from £55 million under a three-year programme to £80 million and then, this year, to £110 million. That is for family planning and commodities, which is not bad for this country. I am very pleased to say that Andrew Mitchell's heart is in the right place on population issues.
	I commend DfID for another thing: this year it had a policy paper on abortion and now our Government and DfID accept it. It is an extremely important thing that women have access to safe abortion because so many of them die from botched attempts. And if women cannot feed their children, their children will die, or they themselves will die. That is simply not acceptable.
	What is missing in all the words that have been said this evening is the position of women. Women make up half of the world's population but in the poor countries they have no status and no ability to look after their own affairs. They cannot do anything or say anything because they have no power. We must help them gain some of the power, which we can do by helping them to earn money rather than through education. For 45 years people have been talking about educating women, but how do you educate each woman in a poor country? Let us start by giving them an opportunity to earn money. When they can do so, they will send their children to school and the next generation will be educated. That is the only way that education can come to poorer countries.
	I was a little surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, brought up the situation in the UK. The situation here is also worrying. I was not going to talk about it this evening but, now that he has mentioned it, I feel that I can as well. Some of the minority communities have very large families and the health of these women always deeply concerns me. I do not care how many children people have but I care about the fact that women here suffer from the same health problems as they do in their countries of origin. When the cap comes in I do not know how they will manage.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, as a farmer, I take this opportunity to make a few remarks about food security. As the world population continues to increase, the reality is that global agricultural production will be hard pressed to keep up with the ever-rising global demand for food.
	The world population is anticipated to rise to 9 billion by 2050. The anticipated patterns of economic development, particularly in large parts of the developing world, should cause us to ask serious questions about our national resilience, our dependence on food imports, and what we should be doing to ensure that our agricultural sector can deliver what we will need.
	In the year leading up to June 2010, the forecast estimated cereal stocks had fallen from 73 days of consumption to 67 days. We should be asking the question about food security and putting in place the policies that will provide satisfactory answers. Meanwhile, in recent years our national dependence on food imports has increased by about 8 per cent. We have seen a widening trade gap in food, feed and drink; a reduction in our national self-sufficiency in indigenous food to below 59 per cent-the lowest figure in 42 years; and a reduction in the number of dairy cows, beef cows, pigs, sheep and poultry. The area of land for producing fresh vegetables has fallen, including a 15 per cent reduction in the area of land for producing potatoes in the 10 years leading up to 2008. The land for producing fresh fruit and cereals has also fallen.
	The global growing levels of wealth and patterns of changing demand will require the UK to make sure that its agricultural sector is configured to compete: and that needs to include consideration of the impact of the common agricultural policy. This needs to look to the future and not to the past, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to update the House on these matters.

Lord Teverson: My Lords, I have always been an enthusiastic student of history. One of the people whose name often comes up when we look at economic history is Mr Malthus, with his Malthusian concerns on population growth and the ultimate issues around poverty coming from population rise. It is rather ironic that during Victorian times it was quite the opposite of that. In fact, he has so far been proved to be wrong as population growth and world wealth, although badly distributed, have acted together.
	However, it is interesting that we are having this debate on the same day as hearing a Statement on next year's hoped-for treaty on climate change being debated in Cancun. In bringing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, to the fore, an area not mentioned in that Statement-and I suspect mentioned openly hardly at all in the conference-was population growth. The subject is, on the whole, difficult to talk about on a national or international level. However, in terms of carbon emissions it is a major concern because carbon and climate are functions of economic growth, which is also a function of population. Carbon footprint is a measure we often think about in terms of individuals as well of nations. Population growth must therefore be taken into account in climate change. In that area, world population growth is a major issue that needs to be factored in to those negotiations.
	It is perhaps ironic that the nation at which we point our fingers as regard its carbon emissions, targets and the way in which its emissions have grown, is China. With its one-child policy, China has had the highest profile population control measure. Since its introduction in the late 1970s, it is estimated to have lowered world population growth by some quarter of a billion. As China becomes less centralised and more democratic-or more assertive in individual rights over a long term-I am sure that that policy will disappear and perhaps exacerbate this problem. I certainly hope that it will disappear because it is as much one's human right to have children as it is the right of women in particular not to have them.
	The point I really want to make is that I am a fundamental believer in those old maxims that population growth will be solved when we solve worldwide the status of women, have economic developments in low carbon in developing countries and a much more equal economic system that will overcome some of the problems that we looked at in the sub-committee discussing Frontex and the limits to which people will go.
	In conclusion, I want to congratulate both this Government and the previous Government on ringfencing and ensuring that DfID and development expenditure are a national priority. That often comes as a criticism, whether from the tabloid press or from a more populist wing in this country, when it is one of the most selfish but best policies that any Government of this country can have.

Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I should like to be positive, but not complacent, on the potential of this subject of world population. I am led to do so by the remarkable conversion of this Government, and in particular the person of the Minister, Mr Andrew Mitchell, to the fundamental importance of the matter that we are today discussing. I realise that this occurred well before the current coalition took office, but the addition of the Liberal Democrats should add impetus on this subject.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, will no doubt tell us, DfID will shortly be coming up with the results of a major review of departmental priorities. It is hoped that that could be the occasion to consolidate the importance of reproductive health in DfID programmes. It could also be the occasion to enlarge and properly define the scope of bilateral family planning projects.
	I also hope that, following the lead of DfID, it might also be the occasion for many British and international NGOs and charities at last to recognise that family planning and the size of population is a relevant and cost-effective consideration. As a departmental Minister, Mr Stephen O'Brien, said to us on World Population Day in July,
	"We must start to close the unmet need for modern contraceptives-and DfID is ready to do more in this area-the coalition Government has made a positive start".
	To add to the above, it is also the case that the European Commission has produced a Green Paper consulting on its overseas development aid and asking for responses next year. It is subtitled "The future of EU budget response to third countries". Again, for those of us who have been critical of how some of that aid is used, that could be a useful starting point for serious reform. It is also to be hoped that DfID could use its influence with our EU colleagues to raise the profile and effectiveness of reproductive health in helping to meet MDGs.
	I shall come down to some of the detail that I have just outlined. I believe that our country has recently had a good record on reproductive health and related MDGs in terms of our contributions. However, because of the way that we define what we do, particularly bilaterally, we do not necessarily come out well in comparative statistics. I hope that as part of our re-emphasis on this field, we can be more transparent in accounting for and defining what we give.
	For some time now, the considerable resources understandably devoted to HIV/AIDS prevention have tended to be at the expense of family planning. Sometimes that is the reason that the two endeavours overlap in their aims, but the importance of autonomous support for family planning must not be forgotten.
	There is a tendency in the European Commission Green Paper on development aid, which is now out to consultation, to avoid using particular words, as was mentioned earlier. Reading that document, one begins to realise that there must be horsetrading among so many nations to get any agreement on priorities on such diverse subjects. In this case, focusing on MDGs provides some sort of common, binding aim, but there is reluctance seriously to consider or talk about one aspect of recorded MDGs. That is the contribution that reproductive health can make to many other related MDGs. I hope that we can all grasp the opportunities that will present themselves in the coming year.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I rather like these short debates, particularly when the charming mother hen on the Front Bench tells me not to crow for too long. I was always told to do everything in threes: Tripos, Church law in Parliament and Father, Son and Holy Ghost. In this case, it is land, air and sea.
	I will adopt a slightly different approach. I regard human beings as an asset, not a liability, and I regard a population as an opportunity, not something to fear. For example, as was mentioned just now, we have two great economies in fast growth in the world: India and China, who, together, have 37 per cent of the world's population and large amounts of high productivity. How and why? It is a question of what you get people to do and how you turn them into a benefit.
	I turn to my favourite subject: the Commonwealth, which, as your Lordships know, accounts for 25 per cent of the world population. If we look at our bailiwicks, our overseas and dependent territories, we cover a large part of the globe. We have to ask: why did we ever develop a Commonwealth or an empire? It was because of the added value that we could create in various countries. Most of that added value was, surprisingly enough, related to the resources of the land-its minerals and raw materials. As we look at that development, we find to our amazement that, suddenly, the world is saying that we are overpopulated. We may look back at large chunks of Africa, where I have worked-in particular, somewhere such as the Sudan, which was to be the bread basket of the Middle East, where any amount of grain could be grown to feed the populations. As you look at a map from space, or whatever, you will find that the productivity of all those countries is roughly the same. The weather pattern may have changed, but the opportunity to produce food, which people need, is very significant.
	I have even thought that in the past, when people were short of labour, the slave trade took place; now, when they are short of labour, migration takes place. That is what has been happening in this country. We need to look at the opportunities that can be created in those Commonwealth countries for the regeneration of food and products that we have long forgotten about.

Lord Patel: My Lords, population growth and its consequences is a question that crops up in daily conversations but is a subject that people find difficult to discuss. It quickly leads to polarised positions and finger-pointing as to who is having too many babies and why. To many people of the world, children are a security for support in old age.
	In a recent report of a debate on the subject, "Crisis and recovery: ethics, economics and justice", participants included two highly respected members of your Lordships' House: the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the economist, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. The panel also included Larry Elliott, economics editor of the Guardian, and Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith. The question of population growth arose. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, was deeply worried because he felt that although education, particularly of women, reduces fertility rates, it was too slow for population growth to be controlled in this century. The Archbishop was equally concerned. He agreed that population growth was "a timebomb" but he was worried that state attempts to control it had been abhorrent to concepts of human rights. He was "deeply perplexed". As has been said, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, feared a Malthusian population crash or a series of such crashes, resulting in bringing the population of the world down to 3 billion to 4 billion in a century.
	The pessimism and confusion expressed leaves one feeling gloomy, particularly for our children and grandchildren. The population of the world is projected to reach 9 to 10 billion by 2040, by which time the UK population is estimated to be around 66 million to 70 million. Both figures are unsustainable. The impact, particularly on the environment, will be punishing and catastrophic.
	What is the solution? Who will save the world and the United Kingdom? The facts have been staring us in the face for decades. Two things emerge as being important for controlling population growth. A drop in fertility rates in many parts of the world has always been linked to gender empowerment and female education. State attempts impinge on human rights, yet failure to address the problem could cause a global population crash. Gender empowerment holds the key. The answer to the question, "Who will save the world from the scourge of poverty, environmental disaster, disease and strife?" is women. Women will save the world if they have freedom of education, freedom of choice in family planning and if we eradicate gender bias. I hope that the efforts of DfID will focus on that and that its aid will produce the empowerment of women.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on bringing this problem to the attention of the House. I declare an interest as the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Population Development and Reproductive Health.
	The increase in the world population is putting huge strain on the world's resources of land and water, and is leading to conflict and migration from impoverished areas. With global communication now so easily available, a struggling family in Bangladesh or Afghanistan, for example, will know that they can have a better life in the UK if they can possibly get here and be able to send money back home to poor relatives abroad.
	The paradox is that we in the West and in this country must shoulder a large proportion of the blame for the impoverishment of developing countries and subsequent migration, because of our wasteful and wanton use of the world's precious resources. We may have small families here, but our consumption has led to climate change causing desertification in sub-Saharan Africa that is driving people from their homes and the people of Bangladesh are living on less and less land as the regular floods there become more and more severe.
	There are two things that we must do quickly. The first is to cut down our consumption and recognise the urgency and seriousness of climate change. I hope the news from Cancun means that the West has at least accepted responsibility. The second, equally important, action is to ensure that every woman in the world is able to have access to contraception and to limit the size of her family. Children in smaller families are more likely to receive education and to improve their own lives as well as that of their country. Between 20 per cent and 30 per cent of women in the poorest countries of the world cannot access any birth control, even though they want to. We must deal with this as a matter of urgency. As has been mentioned, the present Government have recognised this need and promised to make maternal health and family planning, in particular, a top priority for international development.
	Now we need to overcome the difficulties of distribution and commodity availability and answer the needs of women all over the world. It is interesting that you can get Coca-Cola wherever you go in this world, however tiny the village in Africa, but it is terribly difficult to get contraceptive supplies. Bangladesh has reduced its average family size from over six children per family to 2.7 by ensuring that all women have access to family planning. That has been done without coercion and is to be applauded.
	In conclusion-and I thank noble Lords for letting me speak-limiting the number of people in the world is crucial to our survival but, above all, we must reduce our consumption at home.

Lord Brett: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in being grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for bringing this debate before us. It seems to me that there are two truths that arise from it: the truth that the noble Lord started with-that this should not be a taboo subject-and that it requires full debate. This debate is too short, and four minutes too short a time for anyone to develop any part of the argument.
	In the developed world, education, contraceptive use, maternal and baby health, increased development and subsequent income improvement have all played a major part. That is probably why I am the eldest of six children, the father of four children and the grandfather of two children. In the developing world, we see the same needs, and they see the same needs for the things that we have enjoyed, which is why the ODA remains important and why I join others in congratulating this Government on continuing the endeavour and ensuring that we get to 0.7 per cent of gross national income.
	Noble Lords have referred to the added burdens that now exist in a way they did not exist in the past: the impact of climate change on developing countries, the HIV/AIDS pandemic and conflict between states and within states. Part of the flow that comes is international migration that provides challenges and opportunities and guarantees that the subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is worthy of a much longer debate.
	Although the official ODA is important, so are the efforts of those in the diaspora from the developing world who are now part of the developed world who seek to assist their own countries, communities and families. I will resist adding to the plethora of statistics that are inevitably an essential part of these debates, but I will emphasise one point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, about the importance of remittances. They are a vital form of financial support. They provide better health and education for the family and are an aspect of the development of small businesses in so many countries. They are three times the size of official ODA aid. They amounted to some $325 billion in 2010 and were 1.9 per cent of GDP for all developing countries taken as a whole in 2009. In the small and lower-income countries, they form 5.4 per cent of GDP.
	In a world in which billions of dollars can travel across the world in a microsecond, we should be able to produce a system that will reduce the cost and difficulty of people transferring small amounts of money. If you are living on a dollar a day or less, £10 in the United Kingdom is a week's wages or more once it is transferred to the recipient. At the moment, it is difficult and costly to do that, and we should be able to make an impact on that as we are part of the most developed world of banking, even if bankers are not very popular at the moment. A fall in the cost of transfers of some 5 per cent would free an extra $15 billion a year for increased development.
	I could go on, but time will not allow me to do so. I will also not pepper the Minister with a series of questions, which is what normally happens at this time. I do not think that anyone disagrees with the aim, although we probably have different ideas about how we go forward. My questions to the Minister are simply these. What is the Government's long-term thinking in this area? Post the MDG period of 2015, where will we go and how will we take this forward? Finally, does she support my view and that of many others that we need a full debate on all aspects of this? The great expertise around this House could assist the Government in a joint endeavour that I believe we all support.

Baroness Verma: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for securing this important debate, and I congratulate all noble Lords on some excellent contributions. Time will not allow me to respond to all noble Lords tonight, but I hope, through my contribution, to be able to provide answers to some of the questions. I undertake to write to noble Lords in answer to the remainder.
	My noble friend Lord Hodgson is right that some people describe global population growth as too difficult or too sensitive a subject to tackle or even to talk about. Many shy away from discussing it in case they are accused of wanting to remove free choice from individuals or to force individuals to have fewer children. We think that the time is right to bring the debate out into the open and for us to engage in a debate that looks at the bare facts.
	The world's population is projected to increase to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all this growth-99 per cent of it-will occur in developing countries. Most sub-Saharan African countries will see continuing and rapid growth for several decades. Some countries' populations are likely to double; the population of Ethiopia is projected to increase from its current 82 million to 173 million by 2050. Some may even triple; some may even quadruple. Let me make it absolutely clear: the coalition Government do not support programmes that coerce people to have fewer children, but we are proud to revitalise efforts to give women the choices that they crave: to choose whether, when and how many children they have.
	Some 215 million couples who want to delay or avoid a pregnancy currently lack access to effective methods of contraception, and we believe it is high time that their needs are met. The largest generation of adolescents in history is entering its reproductive years. With the demand growing for basic services such as water, sanitation, education and health, we will need to address this very soon. Not only basic services will feel the strain of rapid population growth; natural resources such as water, fuel, wood and land for growing will all come under increasing pressure. The poor, who are the most reliant on the natural environment for their basic survival, will feel the greatest impact.
	Some noble Lords talked about climate change, which of course poses an additional threat and cost to the world's most vulnerable people and their countries. Without efforts to adapt to the adverse impacts of a change in climate, even more livelihoods and lives will be lost. We need to work with low-income countries to help them to plan their future in a carbon-constrained world and to identify where low-carbon development can support economic growth and poverty reduction. Investments in low-carbon development can have significant benefits for all, but particularly for women. Increasing access to renewable energy has health benefits, including reducing local air pollution, reducing expenditure on kerosene, and reducing the time spent collecting firewood.
	Improved energy supplies can also help rural incomes and provide new jobs, especially in sectors in which women are traditionally employed, such as agroprocessing. By supporting gender equality and women's and girls' empowerment and education, we can help couples and individuals to reduce the high occurrence of fertility, and improving water, sanitation, health and education services can increase people's confidence that their children will survive into adulthood.
	The unmet need figure of 215 million couples is really very important. The United Nations medium population projection to 2050 of 9.2 billion is firmly based on the assumption that the unmet need gap is closed and that people are given the services that they demand. If we do not work harder and renew our emphasis on reproductive and maternal health outcomes and do not invest in better and more accessible family planning, the higher UN projection of around 11 billion people becomes more likely.
	The coalition Government will announce plans for improving reproductive, maternal and newborn health in developing countries in the next few weeks. We will invest in family planning because it is what women say they need; because it saves the lives of women and children; because it can help us reach the millennium development goals; and because it offers value for money. We will double our efforts for women's health to save the lives of 50,000 women and to enable at least 10 million more to use modern methods of family planning.
	I am delighted that the coalition Government are already playing their full part. This year DfID funded the procurement of 40 per cent of Uganda's national requirement for contraceptives, condoms and long-term family planning methods, such as injections and implants. Currently, 41 per cent of women in Uganda who want to use family planning cannot do so. DfID's support will help to avoid 250,000 unintended pregnancies, which would otherwise result in 75,000 abortions and 750 maternal deaths. A broader programme with the United Nations Population Fund is under design. It will address more of the cultural and social barriers to accessing family planning services.
	As to the implications for the UK, the population of the UK was 61.8 million in mid-2009, an increase of 2.7 million when compared with mid-2001. That increase of course has been partly due to migration to the UK. Controlled migration benefits the UK economically and culturally, but recent levels are unsustainable in terms of population growth and the consequent pressure on key public services, such as schools, the health service, transport, housing and welfare, as well as the impact on community cohesion. This causes understandable concern. By focusing on reducing net migration, we aim to make a significant impact on population growth.
	The Office for National Statistics projects that the UK will reach a population of 70 million by mid-2029. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced in the other place three weeks ago, that is why we are taking comprehensive action to tighten our immigration systems. We are introducing a new permanent limit on non-EU economic migrants. We will refocus student visas to create a more selective system and to stop abuse. We are cracking down on sham marriages and will consult on extending the probationary period of settlement for spouses beyond the current two years. At the moment, it is easy to move from temporary residence to permanent settlement and we will end that link.
	These changes to the work route and some of the settlement changes will be introduced from April 2011. We will move forward on other changes soon after. These proposals do not mean bolting our borders shut. We want an immigration system that has in place properly controlled migration. There is no doubt that we benefit from the brightest and the best coming to the UK. Of course we need to offer protection to those who fear persecution or serious harm. It has to be measured against the backdrop of the questions posed today.
	Noble Lords raised one or two points about the presence of women in discussions. They will know that, in the summer, at the G8 summit in Canada, our Prime Minister noted that this Government will reorientate their aid budget to put women at the centre and the front of our development efforts. All noble Lords are absolutely right: unless women are at the heart of policy development, it would be extremely difficult to address the serious issue of population growth.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brett, that this debate is not long enough to discuss the fundamental difficulties that we face. It is crucial to have much longer debates so that we can iron out some of the great difficulties that we as a nation face and that the globe faces collectively. A note should be made for the usual channels of the need to ensure that we address all these issues. If I have failed to satisfy noble Lords, I undertake to write to them.
	8.35 pm
	Sitting suspended.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill 
	Copy of the Bill
	Explanatory Notes
	Amendments
	7th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee 
	6th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights

Committee (4th Day) (Continued)

Amendment 36A
	 Moved by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
	36A: Clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert ", and
	(c) citizens of other countries which are members of the European Union, resident in the United Kingdom"

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I was going to say that it is a good job that the Government Whips Office is not in charge of snow clearing, but I thought it might not go down well with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, so I will certainly not say anything.

Lord McNally: Someone from Edinburgh is starting to make jokes about snow clearing.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: The noble Lord is absolutely right because the Minister who had to resign did not come from Edinburgh; he was from the north-east. He used to drive Alex Salmond because he was his chauffeur, which is how he got the job as a Minister. If noble Lords want a hint, that is not the best way to choose a transport Minister, by the way. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with Amendment 36A.
	I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, in his place. In the previous debate the noble Lord was deeply concerned about confusion. He did not want those 16 and 17 year-olds to turn up at polling stations and be confused or cause confusion because they would not be able to vote in anything other than the referendum. I could see his deep and intense worry about confusion. That is why this amendment is very helpful to the coalition Government.
	As I said on a previous amendment, one of the problems with the Bill is that it is going to result in confusion not only in campaigning, but in this context also in confusion at the polling station because we will have two separate franchises. One will be the local government franchise which, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, knows only too well, is used for the Scottish Parliament, and the parliamentary franchise, with one alteration at the moment, which will be used for the referendum. How do we deal with the confusion at polling stations? I suggested in an earlier amendment that we should not have the elections on the same day. We discussed that at length, but it was not accepted by the Government. I went on to examine the variations in the franchises to see whether something could be done to bring them together so that we would have one franchise. That would be much simpler for polling officers.
	Noble Lords will recall from previous debates and by looking at the Bill in detail that in some cases polling officers can opt for two registers, in which case as the different franchises come in they will have to be checked and then ticked off on one or the other of the registers, or they can opt for a single register for the two franchises, in which case they would have to mark on the register which ballot papers the elector receives. They will be given one ballot paper for the referendum, or two ballot papers for the election, or three ballot papers for the election and the referendum. I can already see the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, realising how confusing it is going to be and imagining himself sitting as a polling officer and carrying that out. It would be much easier if we conflated the franchises so that they were just one. Although there are other arguments in favour of it, that was the basis for this amendment.
	If we look at the variations, first, overseas voters are able to vote in the parliamentary elections-in other words, they would be able to vote in the referendum-but not in the local government election. However, I do not imagine that there will be many people coming from overseas seeking to vote and if there are, they are more likely to have postal votes. I would not have thought that they would actually turn up at the polling stations. The overseas voters, who are not able to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections, should be of no great concern to us as far as the conduct at the polling station is concerned.
	The second category, with which noble Lords will find they have a complete understanding, is Peers. Peers are not able to vote in the parliamentary elections so they would not be able to vote in the referendum. Yet the Government, in their wisdom, have included a special arrangement for us Peers to vote, exceptionally, in this referendum. That is included in another amendment, so Peers are dealt with.
	Those who remain are citizens of European Union countries,
	"resident in the United Kingdom".
	They all vote in the Scottish Parliament elections, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, will also know. We get Poles, French and Germans who are living and working in Scotland-and paying UK taxes-and who will turn up and vote in the Scottish Parliament elections. Yet they would not be able to vote in the referendum unless my amendment is agreed today. If we do that, it will deal with the third category which means that we will then have a combined register, by conflating the two franchises, and that things will be much easier for the polling officers.
	There is another logical part to it. We were talking about the 16 year-olds and how they were paying taxes at 16. These European citizens who are living in Scotland, Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom and who are resident and working here will also be paying taxes in the United Kingdom. They will be paying income tax if they are working, council tax for the house that they live in, corporation tax if they have set up a company and value added tax in the shops when they buy things. In a previous debate it was said that there should be no taxation without representation, and yet all these European citizens are all paying tax and are able to vote in the local government elections, in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections and in the European elections but not in the Westminster elections, and now not in the referendum.

Lord McAvoy: My noble friend is advocating that European Union citizens who are resident here should vote in referendums in the United Kingdom. Can he tell me of any reciprocal arrangements where UK citizens can vote in any referendum being held in another EU country?

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Yes, I can. Ireland is a good example of a country in the European Union.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: But we always have reciprocal arrangements with Ireland.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Indeed, but that is just one example; I was asked for only one example and I gave it to my noble friend. I knew what he was getting at but I was not going to fall into that trap. Maybe he would like to come back.

Lord McAvoy: Can my noble friend name two EU countries that allow UK citizens to vote in their referendums?

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I would need notice of that question.
	I understand the import of what my noble friend says, but this has to start somewhere. We are a pioneering country-why should we not start with this? Okay, it is a pro-European kind of amendment, and I know that not all my noble friends are as enthusiastic about the European Union as I am, but it is a good way to start.
	The mother of two of my grandchildren is French; I must declare an interest in relation to that. She has now moved to Scotland. To all intents and purposes she is a citizen of Scotland and the UK, although she retains her French citizenship. There must be so many people like that. Think of the Poles who came over. Some of them fought for us in the Second World War-there are not many of them left-but some are still not British citizens. There are other Poles who have come over and, while some have gone back, some of them have now made their homes in the United Kingdom. Some came over to work in the mines in Ayrshire and in other parts of the United Kingdom. Some have retained their citizenship of other European countries but, to all intents and purposes, they are now as much United Kingdom citizens as the rest of us. They are paying all their taxes, so should they not vote? There is a strong argument there, as well as the practical arguments about conflating the franchise.
	My noble friend Lord Rooker described his earlier amendment as a "lifeboat". We provided that lifeboat for the coalition. The coalition has not jumped on to that lifeboat yet but it is waiting, bobbing alongside the coalition liner, ready to provide some help if 5 May proves difficult. This amendment is not so much a lifeboat as a lifebelt for my noble friend-he is still my noble friend-Lord McNally. If he wishes to take it, he can make life a lot easier for the polling officers. He can go back to his colleagues in the other place and say, "We've improved the Bill in this way. We've made it easier for people to vote. We've made it less cumbersome and less confusing. That's one argument that that fellow Foulkes can no longer keep on pursing". I hope that the Minister will see this as a lifebelt and grasp it with both hands.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendment of my noble friend Lord Foulkes identifies a problem that arises from the Government's plan to combine the date of the referendum with already scheduled polls in the devolved regions and local authority areas across the United Kingdom. Citizens of other European Union member states who are resident in the Untied Kingdom can vote in local government elections. A French citizen living in Leicester will be able to cast their vote in the unitary authority elections on 5 May. An Italian citizen who lives in Newcastle upon Tyne will be able to do the same, as will a Spaniard in west Somerset.
	Those who are resident in Scotland and Wales, by virtue of their residency and not their citizenship, may vote in either the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales elections. Consequently, a German citizen who lives in Cardiff will be able to vote for his local AM in May, as a Belgian in Edinburgh will be able to vote for her local MSP. However, when any of these people go to the polls next May, they will not be eligible to cast a vote in the Government's proposed referendum. The consequence, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, so emphatically and eye-poppingly enthusiastically said before supper, of having different electorates for different votes would be a terrible idea. This is what my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock has indicated is the position.
	Clause 2(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill states:
	"Those who are entitled to vote in the referendum are ... the persons who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency".
	This explicitly does not include citizens of other EU member states who are resident in the UK. As my noble friend has argued, there is potential here for administrative confusion. The polling stations in the 80 per cent of the country that will be combining polls on 5 May will be administering multiple franchises. There will need to be two separate lists of eligible voters: one for the referendum and one for the local and devolved elections. This is the argument behind my noble friend's amendment. I see that the confusion argument has force but I would deal with it differently. I would deal with it on the basis that the answer is not to combine, but to move the referendum to a date other than 5 November.

Lord Rennard: 5 May.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: What did I say?

Lord Rennard: 5 November.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Sorry, it felt like blowing up Parliament. I apologise for the confusion. My noble friend Lord Rooker's amendment, which was agreed to in this House, provides the coalition with the opportunity to move the date, which it can still take.
	My conclusion on behalf of the Front Bench is that we should move the referendum date, not change the franchise for the referendum. If citizens of other EU member states who are resident in the UK cannot vote in UK parliamentary elections, which is the current position, why should they be given a say in which electoral system is to be used in such elections? There is even an argument that, on a question that goes to the heart of the British constitution, citizens of other EU member states should not be able to express a view.
	Furthermore, on the basis of reciprocity, we should not allow citizens of other EU states to vote to influence our parliamentary elections, since British citizens are not-as far as I am aware-permitted to take part in elections in any other European Union country apart from Ireland. The reason why Ireland and the UK have reciprocal arrangements has absolutely nothing to do with the European Union; it is to do with history that stretches way back before the EU.
	There is an anomaly here but it can be dealt with in the way that has been suggested. It really pains me to disagree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. We support the same football team. My son was here earlier, wearing the Heart of Midlothian colours. That is why I feel bad about not supporting my noble friend, but I feel unable to do so in relation to this amendment.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I cannot do better than that eloquent and absolutely lacerating summing up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will withdraw this amendment.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Does that endorsement of what my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said include an acceptance to move the date of the referendum, which my noble and learned friend advocated?

Lord McNally: A kindly thought, but no. As noble Lords know, when Ministers receive research it comes with a back paper. Much as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, the document states:
	"There is no reason why EU citizens should be allowed to express their views in the referendum on the preferred voting system for an election in which they are not entitled to participate".
	The document shows you what a warm-hearted lot our civil servants are as it goes on to say:
	"It is possible that the amendment is a probing one seeking to provoke a debate on the voting rights of EU citizens resident in the UK for the purpose of parliamentary elections".
	That shows how kindly they think of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and his intentions in putting down the amendment.

Lord Rooker: I say to the noble Lord that that was not the reason at all; it was to give the Electoral Commission the supreme opportunity to prepare all the explanatory materials on the alternative vote system in the Bill to explain it to all the other people who use modern, democratic PR systems in Europe as they would never understand the AV system being proposed.

Lord McNally: The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, goes too far. The Government's resistance to this amendment shows that they are not willing to steal a march or twist the electorate as undoubtedly the people who would be enfranchised are perfectly used to AV and would see its merits and are perfectly used to coalitions and see their merits. Therefore, we resist the amendment as a great act of altruism as we are refusing what would undoubtedly be a massive yes vote on the part of those who would be enfranchised by the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. We do not want that. As I have said before, we want the Bill to be purely and simply about fair votes and fair constituencies. Having heard his noble and learned friend's absolutely marvellous explanation of why this is a lousy amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I am particularly grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer-my fellow Hearts supporter-for his comments. When my noble friend Lord Sewel came into the Chamber I was reminded of last Saturday afternoon when Heart of Midlothian scored five goals against Aberdeen. But, seriously, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, did not accept the consequences of the summing-up of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord made it absolutely clear that the alternative to allowing European citizens to vote was to move the referendum to another date. That is my preference and the preference of most people that I have heard contribute to this debate so far. If the noble Lord, Lord McNally, accepted that-that was the lifebelt that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, offered on a previous occasion-we would welcome it.
	However, some of my proposals tend to be a bit ahead of the times. In 1982, I introduced a Private Member's Bill in the House of Commons to outlaw smoking in public places. I think that it got about six votes. Now, all these years later, smoking in public places is prohibited. In 1983, I introduced a measure against age discrimination. Again, I got nowhere, but all these decades later we have such a measure on the statute book. Therefore, I have hope for the future. However, on the basis that this amendment may be a little ahead of the times, I accept the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to withdraw it and come back to it on another occasion.
	Amendment 36A withdrawn.
	Amendment 37 not moved.
	Clause 2 agreed.
	Clause 3 : Conduct of the referendum
	Amendment 37A
	 Tabled by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
	37A: Clause 3, page 2, line 30, at end insert-
	"( ) The Electoral Commission shall appoint a sub-committee including representatives from the 3 main UK parties and one chosen by the other parties collectively, who shall have experience of referenda and have previously held elected office, to exercise all its powers and functions in relation to the referendum."

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: On the basis of representations that I have received from the Electoral Commission and the changes that have recently taken place in relation to the constitution of the Electoral Commission, I now do not wish to move the amendment.

Amendment 37A not moved.
	Clause 3 agreed.
	Clause 4 : Combination of polls
	Amendment 38 not moved.
	Amendment 39
	 Moved by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
	39: Clause 4, page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (3)

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I had expected that some other Members might have spoken against clause stand part, which is why I was not immediately ready. On page 2, line 39, it is stated:
	"The polls for the referendum and the Scottish parliamentary general election in 2011 are to be taken together".
	I am proposing that the subsection be deleted. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that this is his solution, because we have just been discussing the confusion that will take place in a Scottish parliamentary election. I have spoken on this matter, but there are a number of areas of confusion; I will not go on at length about them, but will make a brief reprise of what I said previously. Two areas of confusion are likely to arise. The first is confusion in campaigning and the other, which relates to one of the solutions that I have just put forward-extending the franchise to European citizens-is confusion at polling.
	On the confusion in campaigning, I do not think that the Liberal Democrat Members in particular understood the import of what was said in the previous debate. As to running a cross-party campaign, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and others, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, have been involved. He and I were hand in hand together on the campaign for Britain to remain a member of the European Union-he was in the Labour Party then. However, we worked together with Conservatives such as Malcolm Rifkind, members of the SNP, and other parties-particularly the Liberals. I remember campaigning for our membership on an all-party and cross-party basis. We were able to do that without any problems or difficulties, because there was no election taking place on the same day. We appeared on the same platform. John P Mackintosh was on the same platform as Malcolm Rifkind. That did not create any problems, because people understood that all that was being discussed was whether Britain should remain part of the European Union. They did not say, "It's strange having a Tory and a Labour person on the same platform", because they were not standing against each other in an election on the same day.
	Imagine what will happen on 5 May next year if we have the elections for the Scottish Parliament and the referendum on the same day. As I have said on previous occasions, imagine campaigning with people of other parties. I chose the example of David McLetchie-a friend of mine who is a Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament. Imagine if I said that I agreed with him that we should have first past the post and should not move to this awful system of alternative votes, but while we were going around Wester Hailes, in the Edinburgh Pentlands, people asked, "Are you supporting David McLetchie to be re-elected as the MSP?". Of course the answer is, "No, I am campaigning for Ricky Henderson, the Labour candidate". They would then say, "But why are you here with McLetchie?". If I said, "Because we are campaigning in the referendum", they would say, "But there is an election taking place". That is how confusion arises.
	As to expenditure, when you are campaigning, how can you easily differentiate between expenditure on the election and on the referendum? For example, I may use a loudspeaker system in campaigning for the Labour Party and then borrow it for a day to use in the no campaign for the referendum. How do you allocate the finances? In a later amendment there is a reference to party election broadcasts. At the moment it would be possible for the Liberal Democrats to have a party election broadcast not to say, "Vote Liberal Democrat in the election" but, "Vote yes in the referendum". Unless we change it later, that is quite possible. Most Members here have taken part in an election of one kind or another, or one kind of cross-party referendum campaign or another, and know of the problems of having the two on the same day. So there will be confusion in campaigning.
	I turn now to confusion within the polling booth. As I said, I tried to provide the noble Lord, Lord McNally, with a lifebelt to resolve this problem by bringing together the franchises and trying to introduce a single register, which would have made things easier. However, he chose not to take advantage of that lifebelt. Instead, he agreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who summed up the debate on European citizens voting. The noble and learned Lord said specifically in his reply that he disagreed with the solution in my amendment about allowing European citizens to vote and thought that there was an easier and better way of doing it-and that was not to have the referendum on the same day as the local elections.
	That is now quite possible because of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which was passed by the House. It allows the Government to hold the referendum on any day between 5 May and 31 October and gives them the necessary flexibility. I shall not give away a confidence by saying who it was, but a Liberal Democrat Peer said to me, "George, I see the strength of your argument now as far as the Liberal Democrats are concerned". In fact, he agreed that it would be better for the Liberal Democrats not to have the referendum on the same day as the elections because he believed that they would not get the same degree of support for AV. I could see his argument. When the elections in Scotland and Wales and the local government elections in England are taking place, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party will be pushing to get out their electorate to vote in the elections. They will turn out primarily for the elections and be predominantly in favour of first past the post. Therefore the AV support is likely to be at a minimum and the first past the post support at a maximum. However, if the referendum is held on a separate day it will be the real activists, the ones who want change, who will come out and vote for AV. The first past the post people will sit at home and think, "It will never change anyway" and wake up the next day to find that the activists in favour of AV have turned out. Without a threshold, there could be just a small 10 per cent turnout and the constitution would be changed.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: It rather sounds as if the noble Lord is making a speech of no confidence in his own party leader. Surely that will remove all problems of dubiety about who is for and who is against, because he will get lots of publicity. Mr Ed Miliband has made it clear that he supports AV, which will surely overcome quite a lot of the problems put forward by the noble Lord.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Of course, the support of Ed Miliband-and I have a great respect for him-will help the AV campaign. However, I do not think that it will help it as much as the wide range of support for the first-past-the-post campaign in the Labour Party, which has a whole galaxy of supporters. That still does not argue the case about the differential in the turnout. The Liberal Democrat that I mentioned was arguing from his point of view the fact that it would be for Liberal Democrats to have the referendum on its own so that they could concentrate on the change that was necessary and get the enthusiasts and activists to turn out.
	I urge noble Lords to support the deletion of this clause. It is the first in a group of amendments that would have a similar effect in different areas and in different ways. The amendment would eliminate the probability, or certainty, of confusion of the electorate in the campaign and at the polling booths. If we do that, we will have produced a far better Bill than we received from the other place.

Baroness Fookes: I point out to noble Lords that if this amendment were agreed, I could not call Amendment 39A by reason of pre-emption.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on this amendment. I have always taken the view that we should be working overtime to ensure that the referendum vote on the alternate vote system is not held on the same day as the local elections. I have never really understood that anybody can argue that the two issues, as the noble Lord has pointed out, would be completely confused.
	One thing that we have established on the debate that we have had on the alternate vote is that it is not just a simple change in how we carry out voting. It is incredibly complicated, and we need an extensive debate to clarify these issues. I am not saying that the British electorate are made up of people who are so extraordinarily thick that they do not understand. Let us face it-many of us in this House have been on a seriously steep learning curve as to what the alternate vote is about. When I came here, I thought that there was only one alternate vote; I find that in fact there are four different variations of the alternate vote. It is extremely complicated and a very major change in our constitution. It is a serious change in how we carry out our elections, and not something that should just be thrown in as a referendum at the same time as local elections. It is something that the country should debate and consider very seriously, because it will in perpetuity change how we hold elections in this country and change, also, the outcome of these elections.
	I had great discussion with my noble friend Lord Tyler, who claimed rather interestingly that if we had the alternate vote, it would make what he described as a balanced Parliament-which I have always more pejoratively described as a hung Parliament-less likely. That is a very profound statement for my noble friend to have made, because he is actually saying that the Liberal Democrats are advocating an electoral system that will disadvantage them in general elections. That shows an altruism that I did not think existed in the Liberal Democrats. It has really opened my eyes. It has also changed where I come from, because the reason why I am trying to delay the alternate vote referendum is because I want to see the alternate vote soundly defeated. On the other hand, if the alternative vote system will make it less likely that we will end up with coalition Governments, I should be supporting it.
	I have a problem with this. I saw some statistics that I am now having checked. They show that if we re-ran the last election on the alternative vote system, the Conservatives, instead of getting 305 seats in the House of Commons, would get 280-something, and Labour and the Liberal Democrats would get more. We have been talking about a hung parliament; it would have been more hung under the alternative vote than it turned out. These issues are profound. We must have a debate in the country about whether we want to system that produces more coalition Governments. We see today exactly what the problems of coalition Governments are. The country votes on the manifestos of two different parties and ends up with a manifesto that nobody has voted for, which has been cobbled together, albeit not in a smoke-filled room, because you do not get Liberal Democrats in smoke-filled rooms any more. We do not know quite what the negotiations were. I do not know what the red lines of each party were: what were the things they stuck on and what they were prepared happily to give away. Perhaps historians will be able to find this out. In the mean time, have ended up with a coalition agreement-effectively a government manifesto-for which absolutely nobody has voted.
	We must have the debate in the country. I do not know how we will have it if at the same time we are trying to fight local elections. As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, pointed out, we will be battling for our candidates to defeat the candidates of the other parties. How then will we say, "Hold on, there is another very important-perhaps even more important-issue on which you have to vote on 5 May"? I argue that this issue is more important and much more complicated; it will change permanently the constitution of the country if we go for an alternative vote. However, at the same time we are mixing it up with the local authority elections. I do not see how this can be done. If anybody is interested in seeing this issue properly debated in the country, they should be talking about having the referendum on a separate day. I am not saying that it should be delayed interminably; I would be quite happy for it to be held in June, a month after the local elections. However, it should be held on a separate day so that we will have the opportunity to debate the issues and for everybody in the country to clarify in their minds what is at stake, which is fundamental.
	Having talked to many noble friends on the Conservative Benches, I know that they share many of my concerns about this. I hope that they will think about what they are voting for, because this is a fundamental change that is not to the advantage of our party-it is only to the advantage of people who believe that, de facto, coalition Governments are a good idea. The fact that we are in a coalition Government is all to do with necessity. We should not change the constitution of this country to make coalition Governments more likely for the indefinite future. That is my concern, and I am very pleased to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, perhaps I might intervene as a supporter of AV. I agree with nearly every word that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, said. There is a slight Alice in Wonderland feel about today. I have popped in and out of the Chamber and on many occasions when I came in, I heard the noble Lord, Lord McNally, saying that this was a simple Bill. Every time I hear him say it, I look again at Clause 4-Clause 4 stand part is part of this grouping-and find so much legalistic rigmarole that, despite having many years of experience of parliamentary draftsmen, I find it extremely hard to comprehend. Given the compelling case that has just been made both by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, it is very hard to understand why on earth the Government continue to want to hold the referendum on 5 May. I find that particularly hard to understand of my noble friend Lord McNally-I call him my noble friend because we have been friends for many years. Like me, he is in favour of a yes vote in the AV referendum. The Liberal Democrats, who seem to want this vote to be held on 5 May, are in favour of a yes vote in the referendum, but the one thing that will make it very difficult for proponents of AV to win that vote is to hold it on 5 May.
	I have heard only one argument with any force that it could be to the advantage of AV campaigners to hold the referendum on 5 May and it is that turnout in Scotland and Wales will be higher on that date because there will be regional elections on the same day and that will help. However, that is conceptually ridiculous. Let us suppose that the Scots would be 10 per cent more likely to vote AV than people in the rest of the country, and let us suppose that, as a result of having the two elections on the same day, the turnout would be 10 per cent higher. If those two extraordinary assumptions were true, it would make a difference to the national vote of something like 0.1 per cent. Any advantage that might be gained from a higher turnover would be absolutely negligible in terms of the outcome of the referendum. However, why look into the crystal ball when you can read the book? We have YouGov polls, so we know what the level of support is in each part of the United Kingdom. Support in Scotland is precisely the same as that in England and more or less the same as that in Wales. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason for a differential turnout to favour those in support of the alternative vote system.
	However, there is a major reason to suppose that it would be bad news for AV if we had the referendum on 5 May, and it is this. When it comes to the battle over the referendum, supporters of AV have one enormous advantage. Unlike in this House, where most active Members-I freely concede this-are opposed to AV, there is a network of supporters, most of them in the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrat party, who are prepared to work their socks off for a victory for AV on whichever day the referendum is held. They are networking and phone banking and so on. I doubt whether there is a similar organisation of people opposed to AV, although I am sure that a very sophisticated campaign will be run by the nice Mr Elliott who runs the TaxPayers' Alliance, and I am sure that they have done very well to get him on their side. However, we will cast this huge potential advantage to the wind if we hold the referendum on 5 May. If you think that Liberal Democrats campaigning in a local election are going to be able to turn their attention from supporting their candidates, who are whipping them on, to manning the phone banks for AV, you are mistaken.
	More powerfully-and I can say this with a great deal more authority-the idea that Labour supporters fighting Liberal Democrats up and down the country, condemning Nick Clegg for the disgraceful abandonment of his election pledge on tuition fees, and trying to eliminate the Liberal Democrats as a party in this country will at the same time on the side go out and hit the phones, saying "Would you mind voting for AV? It might help our little Lib Dem friends", is a complete absurdity. The result is that, if the referendum is held on 5 May, we who are in favour of AV-and I do not claim, and never have claimed, that our task is an easy one-will have cast aside our greatest advantage and will have handed a greater chance of victory to those who would block what we are trying to do.
	I can understand the Conservatives supporting that way forward and I can understand those on my own side who do not share my view about AV supporting that point of view. However, I was greatly cheered to hear the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes-whom I hugely admire and whose performance throughout our debates on this Bill has been so remarkable-cheering and nodding at some of the analytic remarks that I made, even if he would not necessarily support the conclusion to which they were directed. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, too, could share the preference for 5 May. But I have to ask: what is the noble Lord, Lord McNally, up to? Does he not want to see the result for which he-like me-has worked for so many years? I am mystified by the coalition's stance, purely because of the realpolitik involved; that leaves aside the whole argument that I have developed on other occasions about what I almost call the "immorality" of combining different sets of issues, including sub-national Parliaments, Assemblies, local government, a change in the voting system for national elections all on the one day, which is a cruelty to inflict on the willing but sometimes confused electorate, who although willing may be confused by such shenanigans.
	I beg the noble Lord, Lord McNally to think again and to look at the analytic case both in terms of the result he wants and its merits. I know that as he is a good and clear thinking man, he will conclude, whatever he may say tonight, that the right thing is to abandon 5 May and to have an early but separate referendum so that the British people can concentrate on resolving this issue for the good of the nation.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I do not want to detain the Committee but, until I read the Marshalled List, I was unaware of the issue that my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock was going to raise.
	The more I think about it, the proposition in the Bill is utterly ludicrous. The Liberal Democrats must understand that the idea that we will have joint platforms either for or against the question being answered positively does not arise. The Liberal Democrats more than any other party should know of the bitterness that often exists at local level during campaigning. How is it possible to have a full, honest, open and participatory debate if the people at the heart of it are factionalised and arguing among themselves about the greater issue of who will be in Parliament and who will be on the local authority? I cannot understand the logic.
	Who is driving this on? Where is all the pressure coming from? After four days of listening to these debates, have not Liberal Democrats and the coalition realised that there might be something wrong with the way in which we are proceeding, particularly when some of us are passionately in favour of electoral reform? We are worried that it will all go wrong. The only way forward, it seems to me, is for the parties in the coalition to sit down privately, without telling anyone, and to think through again whether there is a need to further amend the proposed legislation, perhaps even against the new timetable.
	What is the pressure for the timetable? Why in the first year are we faced with a Bill for a five-year fixed-term Parliament? Why are we so preoccupied in this year one in getting through the legislation in this form? Can we not afford another 12 or 18 months? What will be lost by delaying and getting the question and the process right? We would then have a chance of a successful resolution. We are being stampeded into a decision. It is like a panic-based decision, which will result in it all coming apart. If it does not come apart, we will end up with the wrong system. The Conservative element of the coalition will be faced with an electoral system for which it will be held responsible historically. Why cannot the coalition just sit down for perhaps a matter of months to reconsider this part of the legislation with a view to coming back following the inquiry that a number of us have asked for, having decided on a proper system and process?
	I cannot imagine what is going to happen. The idea that somehow in Glasgow you will get the SNP, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and whoever all on the same platform arguing one way or the other is ludicrous. Unless you have unity of purpose among the politicians, how are you going to win? As I have heard said at some meetings, it might be that the people who support electoral reform do not really want the politicians to be involved. They say that they want a people's campaign. Ultimately, it will not be a people's campaign because it is going to be dominated by politicians. However, the politicians will be warring among themselves on wider issues over and above the referendum.
	I appeal to the Government. This is really the Liberal Democrat end of the Bill, which is why I direct my remarks on all this to them. They are driving this agenda. They must sit down and think what is in their best interests. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, says that he has been told that the Liberal Democrats believe that they will not be beneficiaries under the system. They will be beneficiaries-we all know that-and I do not object to that at all. However, they do not realise that they will lose under the boundaries part of the Bill. Perhaps when we get to that part and I produce data that will be of interest to them, they will realise that they will lose under that part more than they do under this one. But that is another debate for another day.
	I say to the coalition, "Please sit down again and take stock". Are we on the right path? Could we make amendments that would produce a better Bill, better legislation, better procedure, a better question, a better campaign overall and more chance of seeing something come out of Parliament that will satisfy the demands of the electorate?

Lord Browne of Ladyton: My Lords, despite the lateness of the hour, I rise with some enthusiasm to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. I thought that he made a powerful case for why it is a mistake to have this referendum poll on the same date as the Scottish parliamentary elections. In doing so, he did not draw on nearly all the arguments that exist, as has been apparent from other contributions.
	I am struck by the contribution of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours allied to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. From the different perspectives of reform, I thought that they made complementary cases on why the Government should be persuaded to take more time over this process and to get it right. If we are to get a decision about the way in which we elect the House of Commons for a generation or more-or, indeed, for ever-it does not seem unreasonable to ask for time to think about the full implications of the decision that we are making and to test that even by discussion among parties or, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggests, among those who broadly favour reform. Furthermore, I thought that the analysis of my noble friend Lord Lipsey of the effect of the coalition's proposal was deadly accurate.
	I have been listening to debates in Committee on this issue and have been struck by the number of contributions supporting contemporaneous polls from people who, I have the sense, have not done much campaigning to encourage activists and electors to engage in polling. They may well have organised campaigns from the centre, but not out there in the streets as I have done time and again. It is challenging to try to encourage activists to go out with you often in quite inclement weather in Scotland, even at that time of the year, to knock on hundreds of doors, to spend hours and hours on doorsteps engaging with people and persuading them that they should come out during a particular window of opportunity. To ask people to do that and, at the same time, to support a campaign that involves them working with those whom they are campaigning against will be almost impossible. I know from the activists whom I have tried to engage and have worked with successfully on numerous occasions that that is a difficult thing to do. This should not be complicated any more than it needs to be.
	I have already contributed to this debate and I do not propose to rehearse all the arguments that I made when the Committee considered this issue before, but I must say today that I have been reassured that not only did we win that argument-although we were unable to persuade the coalition Government to accept the consequences-but it seems that, subconsciously, we have persuaded more members of the coalition than we thought. For example, I heard the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, adopt exactly the argument that he opposed days ago and earlier today in his opposition to 16 and 17 year-olds having the vote. If he is not consciously aware that he has absorbed the argument, subconsciously his political acumen is telling him that there is something in it, because he repeated the argument.
	Earlier, I suggested to the Committee that one reason why we should not have the Scottish Parliament elections and the referendum on the same day is that the London-centric media will dominate the debate and drown out the voices of Scottish politicians as they try to persuade people to engage with the issues that are important to them concerning who forms the Scottish Government for the next four years. I remember that argument being pooh-poohed, but I heard it repeated back to me today by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, as a justification for why we can be sanguine about the effect that having these elections on the same day will have on the 15 or 20 per cent of the vote, concentrated in London, who will not be part of a contemporaneous process. We are told that the London-centric media will be strong enough to counteract the differential turnout. Because I have done it myself, I admire the ability to use an argument that one opposes in a different set of circumstances for a different purpose. I do not admire the ability to use an argument that one opposes on a different occasion in the same set of circumstances. We seem to be persuading people much more than we thought on these Benches, from the results that we are having with the coalition.
	However, I want to major on another point, which concerns respect. Having the referendum poll on the same day as elections to the Scottish Parliament shows a distinct lack of respect for the Scottish Parliament. The proposal has created in Scotland a unique coalition of opposition. That coalition of opposition was reflected in the views expressed and the vote cast in the Scottish Parliament itself. The Scottish Parliament, the electoral body that will have an election on the same day, has said to this Parliament, "Do not do this to us. Do not impose this dichotomy on our electorate on the same day and please do not do it against the background of the experience that we had in 2007, when a similar set of circumstances were created".
	I read that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Scotland Office dealt with this argument in the House of Commons by saying that he had no response to that debate or that decision because not one argument was rehearsed in the Scottish Parliament debate that had not been rehearsed in the other place or in this Parliament and that therefore he did not need to take cognisance of it. That is disrespectful in the extreme and we in this place should be above that sort of argument.
	I believe that the coalition is required to give Scottish parliamentarians, who have expressed their view in that way, an explanation as to why they are not listening to them. They particularly require to do that because this same coalition Government have just published a Bill that accepts a recommendation of the Calman commission that will give that Parliament the responsibility for organising its elections once that Bill becomes an Act. The Government have said, "In principle, we accept the argument that the Scottish Parliament should be a sovereign body in relation to the conduct of its own elections". That is now printed in a Bill that they hope to persuade this House and the other place to support. At the same time, they are saying, "We will ride roughshod over your recent exercise-potentially-of that right by imposing on you a coincidence of polls that you say you do not want". What is the coalition Government's position?

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I do not see any contradiction between giving the Scottish Parliament sovereignty over its own electoral matters and the right of this Parliament, which is sovereign over United Kingdom matters, to decide how referenda that apply throughout the United Kingdom should be decided. To abdicate that principle is not a matter of disrespect but a recognition of the principle of subsidiarity. That is deeply rooted in our constitutional understanding of devolution and membership of the European Union. We are entitled to take decisions in this Parliament that govern how this Parliament's membership will be arrived at. We do not defer to Europe on that issue or to any regional or other body in this country on these matters.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention because he sets the context for the argument that I am making. I am not making a legalistic argument. As he knows, I am well versed in the legal relationship between the devolved Parliament and the United Kingdom Parliament and was close to the process that delivered that settlement for the people of Scotland. I agree entirely with him in a legalistic sense but, if I understand his argument, he is now saying from the Liberal Democrat Benches that the Liberal Democrats' attitude, or at least his attitude, to the Scottish Parliament is: "We have known the date of your election for four years, but we want that date. You can move". If the implication of the noble Lord's argument is accepted, that will at a stroke in Scotland undermine the only reason that we have heard articulated in this Chamber for why the coalition Government want to have the referendum on the same day as the Scottish Parliament election.
	If I understand the noble Lord, he is saying, "We want to do these two votes on the same day to maximise the turnout, but if you are right"-and we have to accept that they are closer to this than we are-"that this will do a disservice to your election, feel free to move your election. Of course, we have known about the date of that election for four years, but the lack of respect that we have for you is such that you can move over and we will take your date, even if we don't get your turnout". That is not the argument that this House, this Parliament or, indeed, the coalition Government should be putting before the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland have spoken through their Parliament and said, "Please do not do this to us. Our electoral system and Parliament are important to us. Do not do this to us". It seems to me, for all the reasons that have been rehearsed, that they create an argument that is in favour of the objective that the noble Lord wants to achieve. It does not seem to be unreasonable to ask the coalition Government to accede to that request.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in this group there are two amendments and the clause stand part debate. The first, Amendment 39, is in the name of my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, and seeks to delete Clause 4(3) on taking,
	"The polls for the referendum and the Scottish parliamentary general election",
	together. The second amendment, Amendment 39A, is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I have also given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill. I will come back on anything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, says about Amendment 39A. That might be the fairest way to deal with it, unless the noble and learned Lord wants to speak before me on Amendment 39A. I am entirely in his hands.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: If the noble and learned Lord thinks it would be helpful for me to speak to Amendment 39A, I will also deal with the other points that have been made and perhaps come back to him after he has had an opportunity to speak.
	This has been an interesting debate. Some of the arguments have been well rehearsed before. In a debate a week ago tonight in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, sought in a very similar amendment not to have the referendum on 5 May. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House, responded, and the House took the view quite clearly that the amendment should not pass. I am always slightly wary of this position. I can understand the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Campbell-Savours, who I think are basically in favour of some form of electoral reform, counselling against the date, but when the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who I know wants a no vote, tries to tell Liberal Democrats what is in their best interests, Greeks bearing gifts tend to come to mind. It is also interesting that the two sides of the argument-the one side that wants no and the other side that wants yes-think that there are equally good reasons for not having the referendum on 5 May. In some respects, they cancel each other out.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: The noble and learned Lord will recall that when I said that, I was talking about a conversation that I had had with a Liberal Democrat Peer, whom I wanted to remain anonymous, who argued with me that the date should be separate and that he should support my amendment. I was saying that this was the advice that I was being given from one anonymous Liberal Democrat.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I know that the noble Lord is always willing to give advice to Liberal Democrats. It is for Liberal Democrats to judge when and when not to accept his advice.
	We rehearsed some of these arguments with the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, during the debate in the House last Thursday on the order relating to the Scottish elections in 2011. The point about this debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, which indeed relates to Scotland, in combination with the clause stand part debate on local elections and perhaps some mayoralty elections in England, elections to the Welsh National Assembly, and a series of elections and other local referendums in Northern Ireland on the same day, is that the effect of the noble Lord's amendment-

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: What the Government are doing in the Bill is saying that the polls to be taken together are local authority elections in England, local referendums in England not Northern Ireland, and mayoral elections in England, as well as the Welsh Assembly general election, the Scottish parliamentary general election, the general election of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the Northern Ireland local elections.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: That is correct. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for setting that out ad longam. However, the point about the amendment, or indeed the clause failing to pass, is not that the poll for the referendum on the electoral system for the alternative vote could not take place on 5 May; it is, rather, that two polls could take place but would not be combined. It is important that we recognise just what the impact would be either of not letting this clause stand part or of passing the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That is an interesting point. Clause 4(1) states:
	"Where the date of the poll for one or more of the following is the same as the date of the poll for the referendum, the polls are to be taken together".
	That refers to,
	"a local authority election in England ... a local referendum in England ... a mayoral election in England".
	What the noble and learned Lord has said in relation to that is right; that is, if they are on the same day, they can all take place in the same polling station. However, Clause 4(2) to (4) appear to be different. They state that it is compulsory for the polls to be taken together, so they have to be on the same day.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: That point was raised on Report in another place. In fact, it does not need necessarily to be the referendum. I think that I am right in saying that the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh National Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly have the powers themselves to move the date. Therefore, if they were to use those powers, it would not make sense that they should be stuck together. Amendment 39A seeks to address that point.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Will the noble and learned Lord confirm what I am saying? Under Clause 4(1), it is permissive, if they are on the same day, for the three named elections to be dealt with together-for example, in the same polling station. Subsections (2) to (4) refer to the Welsh Assembly elections, the Scottish parliamentary elections and the Northern Ireland Assembly elections. As a result of this wording, they have to take place on the same day.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: If that is taken along with Amendment 39A, which provides:
	"If any of the elections referred to in subsections (2) to (4) are not held on the same day as the referendum, this Part has effect with any necessary adaptations and in particular ... if the Welsh Assembly general election in 2011 is not held on that day, subsection (2) and Schedule 6 do not apply".
	There is a similar provision for the Scottish parliamentary election. Paragraph (c) to be inserted under Amendment 39A states that,
	"if any of the elections referred to in subsection (4) are not held on that day, that subsection and Schedule 8 either do not apply or apply only in relation to the elections that are held on that day".
	So there is provision for a separation.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: To come back on that, I found the drafting of Amendment 39A extraordinary. Under Clause 4(2) to (4), there is a requirement, as the noble and learned Lord has just confirmed, to have the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly elections on the same day. But if they are not held on the same day-for a hurricane or something like that-then provision is made. Surely, subsections (2) to (4) would need to be amended as well in order to give meaning to Amendment 39A.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The purpose of the combination is that if the elections take place on the same day and are not, for some other reason, separated, they should be combined. If they are not combined, the amendment would have the polls being conducted on the same day, but separately. For example, there would be no effective provision for administrators to use the same ballot boxes. There would have to be separate polling stations, which, technically could be within the same building, but they would have to be separate, or they might not necessarily be in the same building. As I am sure that the noble and learned Lord realises, that is the purpose of the combination.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am sorry, but if the noble and learned Lord looks at the wording, there is a distinction. Clause 4(1) refers to the fact that where they are on the same day they can be held together, which is plainly the point about not having to be in separate polling stations. Subsections (2), (3) and (4), as I thought the noble and learned Lord had confirmed, are drafted in different terms and are put on the basis that:
	"The polls for the referendum and the Welsh Assembly general election ... are to be taken together".
	So there is a requirement that they must be taken together, which means that they must be on the same day.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The noble and learned Lord will recall-he is stating the obvious-that when this Bill was brought to this House from the other place the referendum, prior to the successful amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, would have been on the same day. Therefore, as they were going to be on the same day, it made good sense, as I hope the House would agree, that the polls should be combined. I do not think that the Government should stand accused because there has been an amendment-the consequential amendment was not necessarily made here. In the debate last Wednesday, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was encouraging the Government to bring forward an order which would make it 5 May but could be subject to change as long as it was before 31 October.
	So, when the Bill came to this House it stated that the referendum would be held on 5 May. That is the date for elections to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Therefore it makes sense, if the referendum is still to be held on 5 May, and indeed it is still the Government's position that they can achieve a referendum on that date. The Bill that was passed by the other place, published and brought to this House provided that the referendum would take place on the same day. I hope the noble and learned Lord and other Members of the Committee would agree that if they are held on the same day, it makes eminent common sense to combine the polls, and that is what is sought in Clause 4.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: What the noble and learned Lord says is correct. If they are to be held on the same day, it is wholly sensible to combine them. Why are subsections (2), (3) and (4) set out in different terms from subsection (1)? If the reason for Amendment 39A is the result of my noble friend Lord Rooker's amendment, why not just amend it and say that if the polls for the referendum and the Welsh Assembly take place on the same day, which is the effect of subsection (1), then they are to be taken together?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I think that I have explained this. It has been a matter of some debate, but nevertheless it was expected that the elections to the Scottish Parliament would be held on 5 May 2011. It was expected that the elections to the Welsh Assembly would also be held on that day. Therefore, given that that was the date originally set out in the Bill as it came to the House prior to amendment, it makes sense to combine them. But before I sit down I will try to set out why the terms are somewhat different for the polls that will be taking place in England on that date. It could be that a particular date has not yet been set for a particular local referendum. That could be a possible explanation, but before I conclude, I hope there may be some explanation as to why the terminology is somewhat different.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: Could my noble friend address the whole issue of confusion? On 5 May, two important issues are going to be debated with the voters. One is who gets elected to all these local bodies, the Scottish Parliament and so forth, and the other is the question of the referendum on the alternative vote. But as we have discovered already, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, may campaign in favour of the alternative vote and in favour of a Labour candidate. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will campaign in favour of a Labour candidate and against the alternative vote. Is this not going to create confusion among the electors? Even on the Conservative Benches, if we look hard enough we may find someone here who is in favour of the alternative vote. I do not know who it is, but if we look hard enough, perhaps we will find somebody. They would ask voters to be in favour of the alternative vote in the referendum while at the same time supporting a Conservative candidate, while the overwhelming number of Conservatives would probably ask voters to vote against the alternative vote and in favour of the Conservative candidate.
	These are two important issues. Is there not a very strong argument to consider them on separate days so that they can be debated properly and separately? They will not then be mixed up in the way that they are due to be at the moment.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: In reply to my noble friend, these issues were rehearsed when considering a specific amendment not to have the referendum on 5 May next year. The amendment was defeated by 210 votes to 166. I do not doubt for a moment that there will be a campaign on the yes and the no sides for change to the alternative vote and that people will also be campaigning on the local elections. I do not believe that that will confuse the voters. There will be a clear question on what system of elections they want for the other place in the future and there will be clear questions on who they want to elect to the local council, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly. While I suspect that the co-operation between parties may not be as cordial as it might otherwise be, as we have already seen embryonically, various people across the parties are coming together to mount joint campaigns for the yes or the no vote. It is rather a sad reflection on our politics that people who want to come together to argue a particular case for a future voting system cannot do that and campaign for a local candidate of their own party at the same time.

Lord Campbell-Savours: May I remind the noble Lord that he is speaking to his amendment, and that the contribution he has just made should follow on the next contribution, which comes from my noble friend who will wind up the debate prior to the Minister's reply?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: With respect, my noble friend asked a question and I thought it only courteous to give him an immediate reply.

Lord Rooker: I had not really studied this amendment, and it did not cross my mind that it was a reaction to last week's amendment. However, Amendment 39A says:
	"If any of the elections referred to in subsections (2) to (4)"-
	that is, the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland-
	"are not held on the same day".
	What are the circumstances envisaged in which they will not take place on the same day? I did not think that they controlled their own dates at present, so which circumstances have brought about Amendment 39A whereby those elections would not take place on the same day as the referendum? I am not clear about that.
	I have another point. The accounting officers of those Parliaments will be driven by subsections (2), (3) and (4), which order those elections to be taken together at the same time as the clause envisages that they will not be. The lawyers in those areas will be spending money on planning, but it looks as though there are two different and contradictory instructions on what will be in the same clause. But my main point is the first one-what are the circumstances envisaged?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I am hugely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for allowing me the opportunity to explain the origin of this. I do not want to disappoint him; it was not as a direct response to his amendment which was carried. As I indicated, the Bill provides in this clause for a combination of the poll on a referendum with the polls for the elections to the devolved legislatures. During the Bill's Report stage in another place concerns were raised that the current drafting of the clauses restricts the ability set out in existing legislation for the date of the elections to the devolved Assemblies to be moved to a day which would be different from that on which the referendum is scheduled to take place. In order to avoid confusion, we have tabled this amendment to make it clear that the existing legislative powers to change the date of the polls for the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish parliamentary election and the Northern Ireland Assembly elections are not affected by the combination provisions in the Bill.
	I think I am right in saying that the Scottish Parliament can bring forward the election. I am getting reassurance on that from a Member of the Scottish Parliament for the Lothians region, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. It can bring it forward by six months on a two-thirds vote or resolution of the Parliament. Concern was expressed-I do not think that it was specific to Scotland-that it might be felt that the statutory provisions in the Scotland Act, and in the parallel provisions of the legislation establishing the Welsh National Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, were being impeded or restricted in some way by this provision. It was to avoid any confusion of that nature that this amendment was tabled, to make it clear that the existing powers are not affected.
	I hope it is accepted that that is a perfectly valid position to take. If any of these Parliaments or Assemblies wish to change it within their own statutory powers, for whatever reason, that should not be inhibited by the provision in the Bill. This is for clarification. I defer to one of the noble Lords who saw through the Scotland Bill all of 12 years ago.

Lord Sewel: Not only that, my Lords, but I have form in that I put a referendum Bill through this House at one stage. Does the noble Lord accept that the empirical evidence, both from this country and from one which has used referenda many times in a quasi-political role, France, is overwhelmingly that when it comes to referenda the electorate votes not on the question before them but on the popularity of the Government of the time? On this issue, does not conflating the issue of the merits of the electoral system with the popularity of a Government fill him with horror, particularly in Scotland?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Given that one part of the Government is likely to be supporting the yes campaign and one part, as likely as not, will be supporting the no campaign, I rather think that that might encourage people to look at the merits rather than find the best way to take it out on the Government. If there are two parties in a coalition and they are on either side of the argument, it is difficult for that argument to hold as much water as I accept that perhaps it has in the past. I am sure that the referendum on 1 March 1979 was not helped by coming immediately on the back of the winter of discontent. Nevertheless, that allowed a fair amount of cross-party support to try to get the yes vote out, and indeed the no vote. It is up to those of us who want to campaign to ensure that we are campaigning on the issues and not on some test of the parties in power. The fact that the poll is being held on the same day as other elections may mean that some of the more partisan effects that referendums-or referenda, whichever is your preference-may have on the question could be channelled into the elections being held that day. It may mean that we can have a proper debate on the relative merits of changing to the alternative vote system or of sticking with first past the post.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Minister is giving a very helpful explanation of why he has put this amendment forward. In the light of what he has said, I now understand why he has done so, but the amendment does not seem to achieve its end. I understand him to be saying that the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly have the power to change the date of their elections and that, if they did so, the Government would not seek to move the date of the referendum. So the Government's position is that if the polls are on the same day, they should be combined.
	Clause 4(1) says precisely that. Why on earth are the Government drafting the Bill in the terms in which it appears to be drafted-that the polls for the referendum, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have to be held on the same day? Why are they not drafting it on the basis that, if the polls for the referendum and the Welsh Assembly are on the same day, they are to be taken together?
	We do not agree with combination-we will come to that later when we say that Clause 4 should not stand part-but I cannot understand why the Minister is being advised that this is the way to achieve what he so clearly describes. Why are the Government not just saying that if the polls are on the same day, they are to be taken together?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: As I have already explained, 5 May was the date originally set out in the Bill. I do not think that anyone is disputing that. It was the date set down for the elections for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I shall speculate, and I hope that I can get confirmation for this, that there could be a local authority election in England that may not necessarily be on 5 May, whereas the Scottish parliamentary election has been set for 5 May.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: But it could be changed.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The noble and learned Lord says that it could be changed. That is why we have brought forward the amendment. I do not believe that it contradicts at all.
	I shall recapitulate. There could be a local authority election in England that need not be on 5 May. When the Bill was brought to this House, having been passed by the other place, it had been agreed in the other place that the referendum should be on 5 May. That was the date set for the Scottish election, the Welsh Assembly election and the Northern Ireland Assembly election. It therefore makes sense, and I think that this has been widely conceded, that if the elections were to be held on the same day, as was anticipated when the Bill was brought to this House, the polls should be combined for a host of good, sound administrative reasons. Subsequently there has been a change.
	It was drawn to our attention on Report in another place that there was a potential problem. Because of the inherent powers in the statutes establishing the three devolved institutions, the election might not be on 5 May if they chose, for whatever reason, to exercise those powers. That is why Amendment 39A has been tabled. The noble and learned Lord may wish to debate whether it achieves its purpose. I think I have explained what its purpose is; it is to ensure that there was no dubiety and that the powers given to the Assemblies and the Parliament were not in any way infringed by the provisions.
	That is it, very simply. I think it is relatively simple. The dates were anticipated, because of the way the Bill stood, to be the same. There could be a local authority election in England that did not necessarily fall on 5 May. The purpose of the government amendment is to provide that, if the Scottish Parliament-for the sake of argument-wished to change the date, it would be allowed to do so. It would not be inhibited from doing so by these provisions.
	That is why the political arguments around whether the date is right or wrong are not relevant to this clause, which is, in some respects, a technical clause. It links to the various schedules. I pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who pointed to all the schedules when my noble friend Lord McNally said that this is a simple Bill. The schedules have been put into primary legislation, making provision for combining polls in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There are four separate schedules, covering matters that, in many cases, would be put into secondary legislation. However, for simplicity and given the nature of this matter, it made more sense for them to appear in primary legislation in the Bill. This led to extending the length of the Bill considerably, but that is why the schedules are there: it was thought better to have the combination of provisions in the Bill.
	I rather hope the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will accept that the consequence of his amendment-this is why I ask him to withdraw it-would not necessarily be to change the date of the poll. He has already lost an amendment specifically on that. It would, however, mean that if the two polls were held on the same date, they could not be formally combined. Therefore, there might be people who would have to go to two separate polling stations. That is not in anyone's interests.
	I know that this is perhaps more technical than I anticipated but it is not a political argument about the date of the poll. It is a technical one, which says that if the polls fall on the same date-it is still the Government's intention that we should achieve that on 5 May-it is in the interests of those who would take part, not least those who are administering it, such as the returning officers, that the situation should be simplified as far as possible. I recall a Question in the House, asked by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, in July, about a letter from the convenor for the Interim Electoral Management Board for Scotland. He asked formally for the polls to be combined if the election and the referendum took place on the same day. This is our response to the spirit of that request.
	No doubt we will come back to this if issues are raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, but I hope the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will appreciate that, whatever the political argument-there has been plenty of political debate-the technical argument means that it makes much more sense to combine the polls, as proposed in this clause. His amendment would have the rather unfortunate effect of splitting them, should they take place on the same day.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is important to see what Clause 4 says. That is why it is worth taking some time over these things. Clause 4(1) says:
	"Where the date of ... a local authority election ... a local referendum",
	and,
	"a mayoral election in England",
	is the same as that of a referendum, the polls can be combined. That does not commit the Government to having them on the same day. It is expressly conditional on their being on the same date.
	The drafting of subsections (2), (3) and (4) is in different terms for reasons that are inexplicable, unless their purpose is to make it compulsory to have the polls on the same day. As far as that is concerned, although I completely accept that the Government intend that the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly should be able to exercise their powers to move the date, the fact that you have what appears on the face of it to be compulsion to hold the relevant polls on the same day appears to me, constitutionally, to lead to a situation whereby subsections (2), (3) and (4) would override the power of the Scottish Parliament to do that. The Government do not intend that outcome and therefore they should amend subsections (2), (3) and (4) to make them the same as subsection (1).

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, it is important to read Amendment 39A before one gets too deeply involved in this argument. Amendment 39A says that if the relevant polls are to be on different days, "this Part" of the Bill-that includes subsections (2), (3) and (4)-has effect. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, had drafted Amendment 39A, it might have been worded differently. Unfortunately, he is not, as yet, a member of parliamentary counsel and therefore he is left to criticise what they have done. However, parliamentary counsel have not left his point out of account, as the amendment states that "this Part" of the Bill, including subsections (2), (3) and (4), will be construed in this way.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: If the noble and learned Lord, lord Mackay of Clashfern, had drafted these amendments, I anticipate that he would have drafted them differently as well. On the face of it, this drafting confronts you with subsections (2), (3) and (4) comprising a compelling combination. Amendment 39A says:
	"If any of the elections ... are not held on the same day",
	yet subsections (2), (3) and (4) compel them to be on the same day. I completely understand what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, is seeking to achieve and I do not seek to stand in his way. However, his obdurate refusal to consider doing it the obvious way-namely, inserting at the beginning of subsections (2), (3) and (4), "if they are on the same day, they will be have to be combined"-causes me confusion. I earnestly ask the noble and learned Lord to ask his officials politely and respectfully whether it would not be easier to use the same wording as that used in subsection (1) and get rid of the confusion.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: As a mere junior counsel in the face of two of the most eminent senior counsels this country has ever seen, I enter this debate with great trepidation. I am extraordinarily grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer because the penny has dropped for me. The amendment that the Government propose becomes effective only if the polls do not take place on the same day. As long as the Bill stands as it is drafted, they can take place only on the same day.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, is right and I refer him to the comparison between subsections (1) and (2), (3) and (4). However, I have made my point and I earnestly ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to consider taking the government amendment away and coming back with a measure on Report to achieve his aim, should Clause 4 still remain part of the Bill after the Committee stage.
	I wish to address what the noble and learned Lord rightly describes as the political aspects of this. Clause 4 is included to allow for the combination of polls. It is intended to ensure that a variety of elections can take place together. As a matter of principle, we think that that is the wrong approach to that issue. There is no dispute in any part of the House regarding the importance of the referendum. I cannot recall a referendum over the past 150 years-it is more a case of reflecting on history than personal recollection-which concerned the voting system. I think most people in this House would agree that we should hold referenda only in relation to very important constitutional issues. The referenda held since the Second World War concerned: the partition of Ireland; staying in the European Union; the 1978 referendum on devolved Assemblies for Wales and Scotland; and the 1998 referendum on devolved Parliaments or Assemblies for Wales and Scotland-all very important issues. As far as I am aware, each of those referendums has taken place alone, without there being any other poll on the same day. That is a sensible course whereby this country's approach to referenda is that you have them only when there is an important constitutional issue. We heard from my noble friend Lord Lipsey and the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, who both said how important the issue is.
	We also have the report from your Lordships' Select Committee on the Constitution, which is a cross-party organisation that spoke unanimously on the issue. The committee cited evidence that the effect of having elections on the same day as a referendum is that the referendum debate gets swamped by the election of individual people. If you look at America, where frequently referenda take place on the same day as elections-such as those in November this year-you find that no one pays much attention to the referenda and everyone pays attention to the election of individual people. If the Select Committee of this House is right, you are in danger of the referendum question being swamped by the election of people in the three-or even four, if there is also a mayoral election-other elections going on at the same time.
	Why is this being done if it is such an important issue? Everyone in this House wants the constitution properly to be given effect to. I do not want there to be a sense of illegitimacy about the result. Whatever view one takes about this referendum, one wants it to be decisive-decisively in favour of either first past the post or the alternative vote system. The result could be close, but you would want a good turnout and the sense that the question had properly been addressed.
	This is the second national referendum in 120 years. It is the first one to affect our electoral system-the one that will make people have a view about whether they trust their electoral system. This Government, as I understand it, justify bringing the referendum together on the same day as the other elections when there is formidable evidence that it leads to the question being swamped. The Government justify that on the basis that it will save some money. Money is important, but it may be that the legitimacy of our constitution is more important.
	This is a fundamental point of principle, and it is not too late for the Government to change their position. I should have thought that everyone on the government side, whether they are for or against a change in the electoral system, would want the result of the referendum to be something that the country has confidence in. What we are doing on this side is, in effect, reflecting the arguments of experts who say that having the referendum on the same day as other elections is not a good idea. It deprives the result of legitimacy.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. He gave an American example, because he could not refer to any British example or precedent. However, as recently as November, California-a state close to bankruptcy-decided in one day both to change the party in government there and have a conservative outcome in a referendum on gay marriage. I do not think that it is appropriate to draw any conclusions from the American example, except that people are intelligent enough to understand what they are doing-and they do it even when there appears to be some conflict between their decisions.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The American experience, which is part of the evidence relied on in these debates, suggests that in the polls in November, either in mid-term or general election years, the tendency of the public is not to focus on the proposition but to focus primarily on the people they are electing. In the coverage in November I did not spot the result of the proposition in California; all I spotted, which is where all the coverage was in America, was who was going to win in California. So the American experience tends to confirm what the Select Committee said-that the referendum question gets swamped in the question, for example, of who you want to be your Government in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
	Why is it being done like this? Is it only to save money or are there other reasons? The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to which we have all agreed, has given the Government the opportunity to hold the referendum on a different day. In answer to my opposition to Clause 4 standing part, it is necessary for the Government to say why they think it is right that this critical question should be dealt with on a day when there are other polls; when it has never before been done in our history; when experience in other jurisdictions suggests that the referendum question gets swamped; when anyone who has any care for our constitution wants the result to be decisive. I do not want a situation where whichever Government are in power seek to change the electoral system; I want something that is settled as far as the people are concerned. That has always been the purpose of referenda in the past. Furthermore, quite separately from those points of principle, there is inevitably scope for confusion with so many elections going on with different electorates.
	I shall listen very carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, justifying why an issue as important as this is being dealt with in a way which seems to make it harder to come to a legitimate result than easier.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, as I indicated when I spoke earlier in dealing with these amendments, the nature of Clause 4 is of a technical combination; it is not one of the political arguments. The political argument was debated in this House quite thoroughly last Monday evening in Committee and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde gave the answers to the questions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. He may not have liked the answers, but that is a different matter. The House then came to a view and endorsed the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. The amendment seeking not to have the referendum on 5 May-which I think was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes; he will correct me if I am wrong-was defeated.
	The purpose of Clause 4, as I have indicated, is of a technical nature. It ensures that if the polls take place on the same day they are combined. That makes good sense for the voter-who I hope is still the most important person in this-and it makes good sense for those administering the elections. The Opposition have acknowledged and conceded that that is the case and that the technical arguments are very strong.
	The London mayoral referendum took place on the same day as London elections, so the idea that having a referendum on the same day as elections is unprecedented does not hold water. As that was brought forward by the party of the noble and learned Lord when it was in government, one assumes it thought that it was quite an important referendum. Given that we have had only one UK-wide referendum in our history, I do not think we can use it to set a precedent. As I said, the arguments on the politics have already been made in a previous debate. This is very much a debate on the technical nature of combination.
	The reason why the terms are different in subsection (1) is that the elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh National Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly are fixed by statute. The particular local elections are not necessarily fixed by statute, hence the different wording. The amendment of my noble friend Lord McNally has the same effect.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Why does the fact that it is fixed by statute but can be changed make a difference?

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Sorry, I do not follow the noble and learned Lord's point. In the Bill as it originally stood prior to any amendment, the date was to coincide with the statutory dates for the other elections-hence the wording of these proposals. My noble friend's amendment makes provision that, if the referendum was not on the same day as a poll for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh National Assembly or Northern Ireland Assembly, the relevant schedule will not apply and, therefore, they will not be combination. That is what this clause is about and what this amendment is about. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, to withdraw his amendment, as it could have an unfortunate effect, which I am sure is not what he intends. I ask the Committee to support the clause, which is important from a technical point of view, not least in the interests of voters.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: This has been a very interesting and revealing debate. If noble Lords were not confused before they came into the Chamber, I am sure that they are now. My amendment would remove the subsection that says:
	"The polls for the referendum and the Scottish parliamentary general election in 2011 are to be taken together".
	Nothing could be clearer than that, could it? Then we have the amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, tabled in a panic, because of something that happened in Report stage elsewhere. It refers to a circumstance "if" they are,
	"not held on the same day".
	Which takes precedence? Surely saying that they are to be taken together means that they are to be taken together. Nothing could be clearer than that. Even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the former Lord Chancellor, said that if that said that they were to be taken together, they were to be taken together.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I did not say that. I said that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, affects the whole of that part, including subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 4. It modifies the phrasing that the noble Lord has quoted. I agree that that could have been done differently, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, says. I do not necessarily subscribe to the view that, if I had been doing it, it would have been different; that is a different judgment altogether. However, it makes sense that the clause that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is talking about is affected by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, if it passed, when it says that the clause is to be modified if this happens.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I hope that that is now clear. There is a lot of money to be made by lawyers one way or another in challenging this. Certainly, it looks strange to me.
	I have a couple of things to say in relation to the debate on the amendment in the few minutes that we have left. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, made a powerful point when he said that an extensive debate on the referendum was needed. Someone said in a previous debate that this great debate needed its own space, unsullied by local and Scottish elections. My noble friend Lord Lipsey spoke as usual with eloquence and grace, although I disagreed with much of what he said. One thing that I did agree with was his questioning of the idea that this was a simple Bill. It is not a simple Bill. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, described it as aiming for fair votes and fair boundaries. The noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord McNally, and now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, have clearly been given a remit from Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron to get this Bill through at all costs. They have been told, "Put your heads down and don't worry about the arguments. If points are made by the other side, don't worry too much about answering them. Just get it through". That is what they are trying to do. As I said in a previous debate, this is the Clegg project and it must be got through.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked an important Question at Question Time today about holding the Executive to account. This Chamber of Parliament should have some respect for holding the Executive to account, and the Executive should have some respect for debates and votes that take place in this Chamber. The questions that have been raised have been ignored. They are sincere and important questions, which are not being answered from the Dispatch Box. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, did a much better job of answering the questions today than he has done previously. I understand that the questions concern the technicalities of the poll. However, when I moved my amendment, I, too, dealt with the technicalities of the poll and said that there would be great confusion because of the two franchises taking place. Because of the technical argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and because of his plea to me to withdraw the amendment, I will do so, on the basis that it would be much better for all of us if we struck out Clause 4.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I earnestly ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to think again about the wording of the government amendment. I have made it clear that we would support what he wants to do if Clause 4 stands part, but I believe that the Government have not got it right and I ask them to think again. In relation to Clause 4 stand part, I will seek the opinion of the Committee, because this is the means of allowing the polls to be held together. It is right that the clause has technical aspects, but it is basically the foundation of the polls being held together.
	Amendment 39 disagreed.
	Amendment 39A
	 Moved by Lord McNally
	39A: Clause 4, page 3, line 19, at end insert-
	"( ) If any of the elections referred to in subsections (2) to (4) are not held on the same day as the referendum, this Part has effect with any necessary adaptations and in particular-
	(a) if the Welsh Assembly general election in 2011 is not held on that day, subsection (2) and Schedule 6 do not apply (and Part 3 of Schedule 4 applies with the necessary adaptations);
	(b) if the Scottish parliamentary general election in 2011 is not held on that day, subsection (3) and Schedule 7 do not apply (and Part 3 of Schedule 4 applies with the necessary adaptations);
	(c) if any of the elections referred to in subsection (4) are not held on that day, that subsection and Schedule 8 either do not apply or apply only in relation to the elections that are held on that day."

Division on Amendment 39A
	Contents 96; Not-Contents 38.
	Amendment 39A agreed.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at 10.50 pm.